01 Jan
Blog

Acer Swift 3 16 Review: Old School Package, But Decent Value

An Acer Swift 3 16 laptop sits on a desk, angled to the right.

Acer Swift 3 16

RRP $ 1,000.00

"The Acer Swift 3 16 is a bit old school, but it is good value for money."

benefits

  • Excellent productivity performance

  • Solid battery life

  • Above-average premium display

  • Thin and light

  • Attractive price

disadvantage

  • The display has an old school 16: 9 aspect ratio

  • Touchpad buttons are difficult to press

  • Build quality is a little below average

Acer's Swift 3 line has produced some excellent laptops, with the 14-inch AMD Swift 3 topping our list of the best budget laptops. The company has expanded the product line over the years to offer 13.3-inch, 13.5-inch, 14-inch, and 15.6-inch models that are a solid combination of thin and light design and offer attractive prices. Now Acer has added a 16-inch model, the largest display yet, and hopes to offer the same value as the rest of the line.

I have a $ 1,000 configuration with a 35-watt Core i7-11370H 11th CPU. And indeed, the final spec, aspect ratio, is what immediately disappoints about the laptop. Most manufacturers are moving to larger 16:10 or 3: 2 displays, and 16: 9 seems like an anachronism. Overall, it's a nice laptop with good performance and battery life, but the display keeps it from getting any better.

draft

The first thing you'll notice about the Swift 3 16 is how wide it appears, especially if you've used other 16-inch laptops with larger 16:10 displays. A year or two ago the design would have been fine, but now the laptop seems to take up too much horizontal space on a desktop.

It's not that deep, of course, but taller displays that are deeper also allow more keyboard deck space for things like larger touchpads. Acer made good use of the space, and more on that below, but the form factor just feels a bit strange compared to other modern large-screen devices.

It's not bad for a $ 1,000 laptop loaded with the components from the Swift 3 16, but it could be better.

Compared to another 16-inch laptop with a 16:10 display, the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4, the Swift 3 16 is 14.48 "versus 14.13" wider, but 9.1 "versus 9 .99 inches less deep. It's also thinner at 0.63 inches versus 0.7 inches and lighter at 3.75 pounds versus 3.99 pounds. The Swift 3 16 has display bezels similar to the Lenovo, which means they're relatively small on the top and sides, but with a more prominent chin.

The MSI Summit E16 Flip has similar top and side bezels, but an even bigger chin on the bottom, and it's slightly lower than both laptops while being about the same width as the Lenovo. It's thinner at 0.67 inches and slightly heavier at 4.4 pounds. The Swift 3 16 is nice and thin and light for a laptop with such a large display, only the width stands out too much.

An Acer Swift 3 16 laptop sits on a desk, showing its back, tilted to the right.

In terms of build quality, the Swift 3 16 is made of aluminum, but suffers from some sagging in the lid and significant sagging in the keyboard deck and lower chassis. It's not bad for a $ 1,000 laptop loaded with the components from the Swift 3 16, but it could be better. The Samsung Galaxy Book Odyssey is another new laptop that is made of aluminum and suffers from a lack of rigidity. You have to look at something like the Dell XPS 15 or the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4 to get a machine with a solid feel.

Aesthetically, the Swift 3 16 comes in a Steel Gray shade that looks like a light black, and blends in with the minimalist movement with simple lines and angles and zero bling. Even the edges are not beveled and apart from the Acer logo on the lid, there is no chrome to be found. The Samsung Galaxy Book Odyssey is similarly minimalist with a dark color scheme and chrome logo on the lid, and only a few additional moldings make it stand out. The Swift 3 16 is an attractive notebook, only very conservatively designed. My only real complaint about its appearance is that the bezels are plastic, which makes it look a little cheaper than it would otherwise.

On the left side of the Acer Swift 3 16 there is a proprietary charging port, a USB-C 3.2 port with Thunderbolt 4 support, a full-size HDMI 2.0 port, and a USB-A 3.2 port.

On the right side of the Acer Swift 3 16 there is another USB-A 3.2 port and a 3.5mm audio jack.

Connectivity is solid. There's a proprietary charging port, a USB-C 3.2 port with Thunderbolt 4 support, a full-size HDMI 2.0 port, and a USB-A 3.2 port on the left. It would have been better to add a second USB-C port and use that for charging rather than the proprietary power port, an anachronism that requires carrying an extra piece with you when so many USB-C chargers are typically available.

On the right side you will find another USB-A 3.2 port and a 3.5 mm audio jack. That's a good combination of current and legacy connections, with the only glaring omission being the lack of an SD card reader. Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.1 provide wireless tasks.

power

The Acer Swift 3 16 points directly at the camera.

The Swift 3 16 can be configured with either an 11th generation Intel Core i5-11300H or a Core i7-11370H, both 35-watt, 4-core / 8-thread CPUs. They lie between the U-series processors, which are geared towards thin and light laptops, and the faster 45-watt 8-core / 16-thread CPUs of the H-series. My test device used the Core i7-11370H along with 16 GB of RAM and a 512 GB PCIe solid state drive (SSD) and it lived up to expectations. The Core i5 configuration with 8GB of RAM is only $ 870, almost a budget price.

It should be noted that the lack of discrete graphics and the small number of cores and threads make this more of a simple work laptop than a developer's workstation despite the display size.

Acer got very good performance out of the CPU.

Despite the inferior components for a laptop of this size, Acer has managed to get a decent performance out of this system.

In Geekbench 5, the Swift 3 16 was the third fastest in our comparison group and came fourth in Cinebench R23. In many cases, the Swift 3 16 punched above its weight class over these other machines.

For a more realistic test, I ran our Handbrake test, which encodes a 420MB video as H.265. It is impressive that the Swift 3 16 could keep up with the Samsung Galaxy Book Odyssey with a 6-core / 12-thread Core i7-11600H, but lagged behind the ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4 and the Dell Inspiron 14 2-in-1 .

In the PCMark 10 Complete test, the Swift 3 16 finally took fourth place behind the same devices.

These are solid results and indicate that the Swift 3 16 is a fast performer for productive users. Again, it won't be suitable for demanding creative uses, but for everyone else, but it does show that in some cases the difference between a 35-watt chip and a 45-watt chip is not as great as we often assume .

Geekbench (single / multiple) Handbrake
(Seconds)		 Cinebench R23 (single / multiple) PCMark 10 3DMark time spy
Acer Swift 3 16 (Core i7-11370H) 1.613 / 6.119 151 1,568 / 5,806 5.491 1.911
Samsung Galaxy Book Odyssey (Core i7-11600H) 1,478 / 5,366 151 1.601 / 8.571 5,989 N / A
Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7i Pro (Core i7-11370H) 1,578 / 5,957 202 1,514 / 5,544 5,149 1,888
Dell Inspiron 14 2-in-1 (Ryzen7 5700U) 1,184 / 6,281 120 1,287 / 8,013 5.411 1,247
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 9 (Core i7-1165G7) 1,327 / 5,201 N / A 1,469 / 4,945 5,147 1,776
Microsoft Surface Laptop Studio (Core i7-11370H) 1,321 / 5,131 179 1,304 / 5,450 5,091 4,266
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4 (Core i7-11800H) 1,520 / 7,353 106 1,519 / 10,497 6.251 6,691

However, the Swift 3 16 is tied to Intel's built-in Iris Xe graphics, and there's no getting around that. It is not intended as a gaming laptop or video editing tool. That makes it unusual for larger laptops, which usually come with separate graphics and can run light games.

The Swift 3 16 scores well in the 3DMark Time Spy test for an Intel Iris Xe machine and beats the other machines with integrated graphics. Still, it couldn't keep up with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Ti from Microsoft Surface Laptop Studio or the RTX 3060 from the ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4. I ran Fortnite and saw 24 frames per second (fps) at 1080p and epic graphics, a few fps faster than most of the other Iris Xe laptops we tested, but nothing special.

display

The display of the Acer Swift 3 16.

As already mentioned, the Acer Swift 3 16 has a 16.1-inch Full HD IPS display with a 16: 9 aspect ratio. That makes it very wide, which is great for putting two windows side by side but not great for showing vertical information where a taller display would have been desirable. Even so, this was a pleasant display while working on this test in terms of brightness, colors, and most importantly, contrast. Subjectively, I found it to be at least as good as most of the premium displays I've tested.

According to my colorimeter, the display is a bit above average for a premium panel that is not aimed at creative people. Colors were slightly wider than average at 77% AdobeRGB and 100% sRGB, and they were very accurate with a Delta E of 1.11 (1.0 or less is considered excellent). The brightness was good at 334 nits, above our threshold of 300 nits, and the contrast was excellent at 1,530: 1 for an IPS display. In comparison, the display of the Samsung Galaxy Book Odyssey – a 15.6-inch panel on a laptop that was partially aimed at creative people – was only 48% AdobeRGB and 65% sRGB, accuracy at 2.37, brightness (which was better) at. much worse 350 nits and a contrast of only 800: 1.

I would have liked a much higher resolution and a larger aspect ratio for the display of the Swift 3 16, but the overall quality is beyond dispute.

The MSI Summit E16 Flip's 16-inch 16:10 IPS had wider colors than the Swift 3 16 at 89% AdobeRGB and 100% sRGB, and they were just as accurate at 1.12 and the brightness was higher at 482 nits. However, the contrast is 1,140: 1, which is good for an IPS display, but does not show as deep blacks as the Swift 3 16.

I would have liked a much higher resolution and a larger aspect ratio for the display of the Swift 3 16, but the overall quality is beyond dispute. This is a good display for productivity users, and again it is great for setting two windows side by side. The colors aren't wide enough for creative professionals, but that's not the goal of this laptop.

Two downward facing speakers provide audio, and the Swift 3 16 joins several laptops I recently tested that emit surprisingly low volume. At least these laptops had clear sound while the Swift 3 16 is kind of distorted. Mids and highs are muddy and there is little to no bass. Sound quality isn't a forte, and you'll need headphones for almost anything.

Keyboard and touchpad

Acer Swift 3 16 keyboard and trackpad.Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

Because of the very wide display, there is plenty of horizontal space for a keyboard, and Acer makes use of most, but not all, of all. The key spacing is excellent, the keycaps are large, and there is a rather small number pad that could have been bigger with a bit of space on each side of the keyboard. The key switches offer plenty of wiggle room, with only a slightly abrupt punch-through movement that affects the overall precision of the keyboard. It's a few steps behind the best like those in the HP Specter line and Dell's XPS laptops.

The touchpad is large and takes up most of the available space on the palm rest. Its surface is comfortable to swipe and, as a Microsoft Precision touchpad, it copes well with the multitouch gestures of Windows 11. The only problem is the buttons take a lot of force to press until I gave up on them and just tapped the touchpad instead. If you prefer to use physical buttons, these won't make you happy. Unfortunately, the display cannot be touched, which I always miss.

A fingerprint reader in the upper right corner of the palm rest provides Windows 10 Hello support for passwordless logging. It worked quickly and reliably after a few attempts to register a finger. There's a button to turn off the microphone, but no way to turn off or block the webcam for privacy reasons.

Battery life

Close-up of the Acer Swift 3 16's webcam.

The Swift 3 16 only has 58 watt hours of battery inside, which is not much for a laptop with a 35 watt CPU and a 16.1 inch display, even in Full HD. I wasn't expecting the best battery life.

However, I was pleasantly surprised. The Swift 3 16 lasted 8.75 hours in our web browser test, which ran through a number of popular and complex websites. We like to see 10 hours on this test, but almost nine hours is good enough. The Samsung Galaxy Book Odyssey lasted 10.5 hours, while the Samsung Galaxy Book shut down after 8.3 hours.

However, it depends on the battery capacity, which is why the Dell XPS 15 lasted more than nine hours with 86 watt hours and a power-hungry OLED display. In our video test replaying a local 1080p movie trailer, the Swift 3 16 lasted for 13 hours, a much stronger score that was still behind the 14.3 hours of the Galaxy Book Odyssey but well ahead of the 11 hours of the Galaxy Book . The XPS 15 OLED lasted 11 hours in this test as well.

I also ran the PCMark Applications battery test which is the best indicator of productivity battery life and the Swift 3 16 lasted 9.5 hours. This is also a decent score and promises all-day battery life. The Galaxy Book Odyssey was stronger with 11.8 hours, while the Galaxy Book also did better with almost 11 hours. The XPS 15 OLED fell behind by just eight hours. In the PCMark Gaming battery test, which shows how hard a laptop runs on battery power, the Swift 3 16 lasted an average of 1.75 hours.

Overall, the Swift 3 16 has a decent battery life that can leave you with an hour or two for a full working day. This is a somewhat surprising result in view of the small battery, but somehow Acer managed to tease out an above-average longevity.

Our opinion

You really can't knock to get a big 16-inch laptop with great productivity performance and good battery life for $ 1,000. That is the Acer Swift 3 16 in a nutshell. My biggest complaints about the laptop are its sub-par build quality and its 16: 9 display, which makes it feel too wide.

The keyboard is sufficient and the touchpad is large, but Acer has to loosen the keys a bit. If you're looking for a large format machine for productivity with a little creative work, the Swift 3 16 is a strong candidate.

Are there alternatives?

The Surface Laptop 4 15 offers a thinner and lighter body, albeit with a slightly smaller display, and offers similar performance with its own discrete GPU. However, it is much more expensive.

You could also consider the HP Envy 15. It costs roughly the same money and offers superior performance, albeit with less battery life. The display can also be superior if you go for the OLED option (which, of course, costs more).

How long it will take?

The Acer Swift 3 16 shows some bends and bends in the lid, keyboard deck, and lower case, but it still feels like it should offer several years of productive use. Its components are modern and should keep Windows 11 running. As always, the one-year warranty is a disappointment.

Should you buy it?

Yes. Although the display is 16: 9, the Acer Swift 3 16 offers more than enough power for productive multitasking, and the large screen can comfortably accommodate two windows side by side.

Editor's recommendations



26 Aug
Blog

Acer Swift X Review: Top-notch Performance For Cheap?

The Acer Swift X sits on a desk.

Acer Swift X review: content creation cheap?

RRP $ 1,100.00

"The Acer Swift X is a powerful laptop that many students and creatives appreciate."

advantages

  • Outstanding performance

  • Very good battery life

  • Excellent keyboard and touchpad

  • Solid entry-level gaming

  • Thin and light frame given the strength inside

disadvantage

  • Build quality could be better

  • Display is not sufficient for the target market

Creative professionals need more than anything in a great laptop. First, they need power, and lots of it – preferably both a fast CPU and a fast GPU. Second, they need a display with wide and accurate colors and lots of contrast and brightness. Acer's Swift X is aimed at these developers, though it does offer configurations starting at $ 1,100. Is that possible at this price?

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800U, the RTX 3050 Ti and the 14-inch display of the Acer Swift X certainly seem up to the task. After putting it through its paces, the Swift X is far from a perfect machine – but its fantastic performance and value for money set it apart from its competitors.

draft

The Acer Swift X has an all-aluminum chassis that was a bit flexible in the lid and suffered from a slight flexing of the keyboard. It's nothing monstrous. but Asus, Dell, and HP laptops tend to have stiffer builds. The MSI Prestige 14 Evo, Dell XPS 13, and HP Specter x360 14 are three laptops that feel more solid in the hand. The Swift X's hinge is capable of almost one-handed opening and holds the display firmly in place while you work. If the Swift X were more expensive, I'd have more of a build quality issue. However, we are only just on the edge of the premium class for a well configured machine, so I like to overlook a bit of flexibility.

The Acer Swift X sits on a desk.

Aesthetically, the Swift X is a conservative laptop that only encompasses a few angles, including along the back of the case to make some difference. It's available in three creatively titled colors, Safari Gold (my test device), Steam Blue, and Prodigy Pink. The XPS 13 and Specter x360 13 are more outstanding laptops in terms of looks, with the Dell leaning towards business-like elegance and the HP offering a bold, gem-cut design. But there's plenty of room for a more traditional design that doesn't attract too much attention, and that is the Swift X.

I'll be faulting it for its plastic display bezels that spoil the overall look. They're not particularly small either, with a screen-to-body ratio of 85.73% – to be considered truly modern, that number should exceed 90% and the display should be made entirely of glass. The display's 16: 9 aspect ratio is also old-fashioned, with competing laptops using higher ratios like 16:10 and 3: 2.

Compared to some other 14-inch laptops, the Swift X is a reasonable size. For example, it's a bit wider than the HP Envy 14, while it's thinner due to the HP's tall 16:10 display. The Swift X is 0.70 inches thick compared to the Envy 14's 0.71 inches and weighs 3.06 pounds, while the Envy 14 is slightly heavier at 3.3 pounds. The MSI Prestige 14 Evo is closer in width and depth, while it's thinner at 0.63 inches and lighter at 2.85 pounds. The Specter x360 14 is even narrower, but slightly deeper, with its 13.5-inch 3: 2 display, and it's just 0.67 inches thick and 2.95 pounds. It might not be the thinnest or lightest laptop, but the Swift X is still comfortable enough to carry around – especially considering how much power you're packing in.

The Swift X offers ample connectivity with a proprietary power connector, a USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 port, a full-size HDMI 1.0 port, and a USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 port on the left to connect to another USB A 3.2. go to Gen 1 port and 3.5mm audio adapter on the right. Unfortunately there is no SD card reader or, given the AMD chipset, Thunderbolt support. Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.2 offer wireless connectivity.

power

As mentioned earlier, the Ryzen 7 5800U is a fast, thin, and light laptop processor that by far beats the Intel equivalent for CPU-intensive tasks. If we just compare the processors, we should expect AMD's offering to be much faster for things like encoding videos and processing large images. Throw in a separate GPU, even the entry-level Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Ti, and you get additional support for applications that can use the GPU to speed up certain tasks, such as: B. Adobe's suite of creative applications. The Acer therefore promises to be a powerhouse in a thin and light package.

You probably won't find a faster, thin, and light laptop in this price range.

According to our benchmarks, Acer did just that – for the most part. In our Handbrake test, which encodes a 420MB video in H.265, the Swift X led our comparison group, including several other laptops with Ryzen chips. It even (barely) beat the Asus ROG Flow X13 with the faster Ryzen 9 5900HS processor. In fact, the Swift X is one of the fastest laptops we tested in Handbrake, and even outperforms some machines with Intel 45-watt CPUs. The Swift X also did exceptionally well in the Cinebench R23 benchmark and even took the lead by a clear margin with the Ryzen 9 in the mix. Both benchmark results show that the Swift X delivers when you have to perform tedious tasks like encoding video that are CPU draining.

The Swift X wasn't that dominant in Geekbench 5, but I'd like to note here that Acer includes a utility to change performance modes. The utility didn't make much of a difference when I switched to performance mode in most tests, and the results in the table reflect standard mode. However, Geekbench 5 was a test where the performance mode made a difference – the Swift X scored 1,406 single-core and 8,030 multi-core in that mode, taking first place in the multi-core test. The Swift X also took first place in the PCMark 10 Complete Score (the performance mode made hardly any difference here) and did well in the Essentials, Productivity and Content Creation scores.

Acer Swift X sits on a desk.

I also ran the PugetBench benchmark, which uses Adobe Premiere Pro to perform various viewing and encoding tasks. The benchmark shows the effect of a discrete GPU, as the Swift X scores 333 points in the benchmark. Interestingly, this is not as high as I expected and ended up behind the HP Envy 14, for example, which uses an Intel Core i5-1135G7 and an Nvidia GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and scored 432 points. The Samsung Galaxy Book Pro 360 with an Intel Core i7-1165G7 and integrated Iris-Xe graphics scored 241 points, while the Asus ZenBook 13 OLED with a Ryzen 7 5800U and integrated Radeon graphics scored 180 points. These results show that Intel has built in some optimizations that give its chips a better result here in the benchmark. The benchmark is broken down into several sections including Export, Playback, and GPU, and the Intel machines did worse on Export and GPU, but much better on playback, which likely bloated their results.

Despite the confusing PugetBench results, the Swift X is a great machine for anyone who needs a lot of CPU power and a GPU that can speed up intensive tasks. It's also extremely fast as a productivity laptop and tears up everything I threw on it during the review process. You are unlikely to find another thin and light laptop that is faster in this price range.

Geekbench (single / multiple) Handbrake
(Seconds)		 Cinebench R23 (single / multiple) PCMark 10 3DMark time spy
Acer Swift X (Ryzen7 5800U) 1287/6663 99 1437/10135 6247 4073
HP Pavilion Aero 13
(Ryzen7 5800U)		 1373/6430 112 1381/8304 5756 1212
Asus ZenBook 13 OLED
(Ryzen7 5800U)		 1423/6758 124 1171/7824 6034 1342
Asus ROG Flow X13
(Ryzen9 5900HS)		 1415/7592 102 1420/9701 5756 4503
Dell XPS 13 (Core i7-1185G7) 1549/5431 204 1399/4585 n / A 1380
HP Specter x360 14 (Core i7-1165G7) 1214/4117 236 1389/3941 4728 1457
Razer Book 13 (Core i7-1165G7) 1548/5374 210 1508/4519 4878 1776
MacBook Pro 13 (M1) 1707/7337 n / A 1487/7547 n / A n / A

Gaming was good for a laptop that wasn't specifically designed for gaming, with the Swift X doing well in the 3DMark Time Spy test (but behind the game-centric Asus ROG Flow X13). It reached 116 frames per second (fps) in Civilization VI at 1080p and medium graphics and 66 fps with ultra graphics switched on. That's actually a few fps faster than the ROG Flow X13, which surprised me. In Fortnite, the Swift X achieved 64 fps at 1080p and high graphics performance compared to the ROG Flow X13 at 67 fps and 43 fps with epic graphics compared to 47 fps with the ROG. The Swift X is a good entry-level gaming device that can handle modern titles with the right resolutions and graphical details.

advertisement

Close up on the Acer Swift X screen.

From a performance perspective, the Swift X is designed for creative professionals. As we've seen, it has the speed that a very portable workstation can handle for editing videos and photos on the go. However, an important part of that equation is the display – does it offer wide and accurate colors, lots of brightness, and high contrast for creative work? In short, the answer is unfortunately no for the 14-inch IPS Full HD display (1,920 x 1,080) of the Swift X in 16: 9 format. The subjective viewing experience during my tests was a mixed picture, with colors that seemed accurate and pleasant, and with just enough brightness to accommodate the lighting in my house. Blacks on white backgrounds didn't show up, however, which made copy-writing a less pleasant experience than I'd like.

So I turned to my familiar colorimeter for a more objective perspective. The results didn't surprise me at all. Initially, the color width was 72% of AdobeRGB and 96% of sRGB, which is the average of premium laptops, but falls far short of the displays required for creative work. Color accuracy was good with a DeltaE of 1.63 (1.0 or less is considered excellent), so that's a plus.

The brightness was a bit low at 283 nits, below our 300-nit threshold, and the contrast was 730: 1, well below our preferred 1,000: 1 ratio for premium laptops. On another recently tested 14-inch laptop, the Lenovo ThinkPad Carbon X1 Gen 9 (certainly a more expensive device), we see similar colors at 76% AdobeRGB and 96% sRGB, better color accuracy at 0.99, and higher brightness at 306 nits. The contrast of the ThinkPad was still below our threshold at 970: 1, which you could see from the black text. The Dell XPS 13 Full HD + display achieved 75% AdobeRGB and 98% sRGB with a color accuracy of 1,21,458 nits of brightness and a contrast ratio of 1,350: 1.

That's a lot of numbers, but the conclusion is simple. The Swift X allows creatives to get their work done on the go at some speed, but they don't want to use the laptop for final production. Productivity workers will be more satisfied with the display, but even then the low contrast ratio will be disappointing and the old school 16: 9 contrast ratio cannot be compared to today's higher panels. It's a shame that Acer doesn't offer a higher quality display with wider colors and better contrast for the Swift X. That would really make the laptop a highly portable creative production machine.

In terms of audio technology, the two downward-facing speakers weren't exactly great. The maximum volume was on the low side, enough for system sounds and a YouTube video, but not nearly enough for music or Netflix bingeing. The mids and highs were clear, but there was no bass (not surprising for a laptop) and there was no distortion when turned all the way up. You need headphones or a bluetooth speaker.

Keyboard and touchpad

The Acer Swift-X keyboard.

The Swift X has a keyboard with nice-sized silver keycaps and full-size spacing. The key switches are light and clicky, with a comfortable floor motion that provides a precise feel. I still prefer the HP Specter keyboard, which offers a touch more feedback, but the Swift X keyboard comes with the best that Windows 10 has to offer. It's backlit, of course, but I found that the light shining through the gay letters was distorted and difficult to read. However, this is a minor matter. Most touch typists will love this keyboard.

The touchpad takes up most of the available palm rest space, but the top of the keyboard deck is pushed back by an extension that houses the hinge and rear ventilation. That means the touchpad is a bit smaller than it could be. However, it has a comfortable interface and Microsoft Precision touchpad drivers, so using Windows 10 multi-touch gestures is efficient and precise. There is no touch display option, which is disappointing.

A fingerprint reader in the upper right corner of the palm rest offers Windows 10 Hello password-free support. It worked quickly and responsively during my tests, which has become the norm with modern laptops.

Battery life

Acer packed 59 watt hours of battery into the Swift X, a decent – but not great – amount for a 14-inch laptop with such powerful components. The Full HD display would help, I expected, but I wasn't expecting great battery life.

I was surprised. In our web browser test, the Swift X lasted for almost 12 hours, which is a strong score. The MSI Prestige 14 Evo achieved a little more than seven hours in this test, while the HP Envy 14 was better than both with just over 12.5 hours. In our video test, which repeats a local Full HD Avengers trailer, the Swift X reached 12.75 hours, well below the 16.3 hours of the Prestige 14 Evo and 14.5 hours of the HP Envy. I've noticed that Ryzen laptops don't have the same increase from the web browsing test to the video test, which shows that Intel machines are more efficient at playing videos.

In the battery benchmark PCMark 10 Applications, the best indicator for the longevity of productivity, the Swift X does well with just over 12 hours. The Prestige 14 Evo did not quite manage 10.5 hours in this test, while the HP Envy 14 would not complete the benchmark. In the PCMark 10 gaming battery test, the Swift X shut down after just under 1.5 hours, which is the lowest result we have ever seen. The Prestige 14 Evo lasted just 10 minutes longer, while the HP Envy 14 is the other laptop to score the Swift X's. This test seems to show how much a laptop is throttled on battery power, which means that the Swift X works hard when turned off and therefore burns its battery up pretty quickly.

Overall, these results suggest that the Swift X will last you a full day of work with a few hours to spare. If you drive the CPU and GPU hard enough, you will get a lot less battery life, but that's to be expected. If you encode video on the go, take your power adapter with you.

Our opinion

The Acer Swift X does what it promises to pack a lot of power into a thin and light frame. It's one of the fastest 14-inch laptops we've tested, and it's a great choice for creative professionals who need power on the go. Battery life was also a strength, which makes this notebook a great productivity laptop for on the go.

The biggest downside to the Swift X is the display. Getting rid of it entirely by creative professionals isn't bad enough, but they should have a better external display in the office to complete their work. Acer would have been smart about offering a higher quality display for those who want it the most.

Are there alternatives?

There aren't many laptops that combine a fast Ryzen CPU with a discrete GPU. One that has recently become available is the Asus ROG Flow 13, which is a smaller machine but almost as fast. Aside from the Asus' gaming aesthetic, it's a great alternative for anyone who needs portable performance.

The HP Envy 14 is an option for someone who can live with an Intel Core CPU to work with separate graphics, and it has performed well in Adobe applications. It also suffers from a smaller display, but offers good performance and better build quality.

How long it will take?

The Swift X is so well built you can expect it to hold up on high-performance computing for years. The components are modern and should keep up with the times, demanding users should get their money's worth. As always, the industry standard one-year warranty is disappointing.

Should you buy it?

Yes, for performance and battery life. Just make sure you can live with the display before pulling out your credit card.

Editor's recommendations



14 Jul
Blog

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX Review: A $2,999 HDR Dream Monitor?

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX

RRP $ 2,999.00

"The Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX is a brilliant PC gaming device, but its shortcomings are hard to swallow."

advantages

  • Mind-blowing HDR performance

  • Extremely high peak brightness

  • Excellent colors

  • Built-in thread for camera mounting

  • Fast, fluid play

disadvantage

  • No HDMI 2.1

  • Has audible fan

  • Still not a perfect HDR experience

  • Expensive

The ROG Swift PG32UQX was first teased about two years ago, and unlike any gaming monitor in recent history, it has hyped the PC gaming community. You will find forum threads full of excitement. And for a good reason.

According to Asus, the ROG Swift PG32UQX offers overwhelming HDR performance unlike any other monitor currently on the market. In addition, it was the first 32-inch 4K gaming monitor based on mini-LED technology with full-array local dimming (FALD) for HDR lighting with 1,152 individual zones and a peak brightness of up to 1,400 nits.

The catch, of course, was the price. $ 2,999 is more than most complete PC gaming setups, including the PC, monitor, and peripherals. Therefore, it is only realistic to expect absolute and absolute perfection. The ROG Swift PG32UQX does a lot of things amazingly well, but it's not perfect.

design

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQXNiels Broekhuijsen / Digital Trends

The ROG Swift PG32UQX is quite a large monitor. That's what is expected from a 32-inch display, but the PG32UQX is slightly larger than most 32-inch panels because of its FALD lighting panel, which gives the display a noticeable thickness.

The design style is also quite aggressive, whereby Asus does not shy away from any chance that the PG32UQX is recognized as a Republic of Gamers product. The stand of the monitor has the new but classic tripod design with a downward-facing lighting stamp, the back of the display has strong shapes and a huge, RGB-illuminated Asus ROG logo, and the display's large chin has a small OLED panel in it to display entertaining graphics or system information, such as B. CPU temperature.

Niels Broekhuijsen / Digital Trends

Indeed, there is a lot to discover here. However, if styling isn't your thing, it's easy to slide the back of the monitor toward a wall, replace the stand with a VESA mount, and then that's all that's left of the display's chin, which may look a bit aggressive .

The tiny OLED display is pretty nifty though – I doubt anyone will mind, especially because it's customizable.

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX

The display's power brick is external, which I think is a good thing because otherwise the PG32UQX would have been even bigger, and there is a thread on top of the monitor for inserting a camera mount – I've tried and this monitor will happily hold mine mirrorless camera with a large lens. Streamer, do you get this?

At the top right there is even a USB port to which you can connect your webcam or camera without having to fumble around behind the monitor.

Connections and controls

Niels Broekhuijsen / Digital Trends

The ROG Swift PG32UQX offers a variety of connectivity options, but it is not complete. There are three HDMI 2.0 ports, a single DisplayPort 1.4a port, a three-port USB hub, and a headphone jack.

But HDMI 2.1 is actually missing, and that's a big one. HDMI 2.1 is now the standard for multimedia connectivity, with all 2020 and 2021 GPUs and consoles having the interface. Without them, your Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5 can't run at 4K 120Hz with full color support, and that's unacceptable for a high-end 4K monitor in 2021 – especially one that costs $ 3,000. Most new gaming laptops even ship with support for HDMI 2.1.

HDMI 2.1 is missing, and that's unacceptable for a high-end 4K monitor in 2021.

There is an opposite side to this argument, namely that there are hardly any PC monitors with HDMI 2.1 at all. That, and the official Nvidia G-Sync module has not yet been developed to support HDMI 2.1. Still, I find it inexcusable on a monitor of this price and caliber. If you want to use the PG32UQX with a modern console, keep in mind that you are limited to 60Hz or have to sacrifice color: you will never have the best experience.

The display's OSD has somewhat weird controls with a spinning wheel in the center and a button on each side, but it's easy to navigate and most of the settings you need are there.

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQXNiels Broekhuijsen / Digital Trends

However, there is no brightness control in HDR mode, which is a problem. One can argue whether this matters as the brightness in HDR is supposed to be controlled by the PC and not the monitor, but I still prefer to see some kind of brightness control at all so that the basic brightness for the room is set to a comfortable level can be level.

There is a fan

Before packing up, there is one more drawback worth mentioning: the display has a fan. It turns on the moment the display does, and even though it's not loud, it's audible. This isn't a problem if you're using headphones or playing soft music, but it can be annoying if you enjoy a quiet room and have an otherwise quiet computer.

Mini LED and HDR

If there's a reason to buy the PG32UQX, it's mini LED and its HDR performance. I'll start with the good things: when using the right HDR content, the visual results the PG32UQX can produce are simply amazing. As if the monitor wasn't worth the price all the time, suddenly it was, almost.

LCD panels cannot block all of the light even when they are black, so the ability to dim selected areas (HDR on PC monitors, explained) is necessary to achieve full black levels. By dimming selected areas, the display can also increase the peak brightness in a small area without overly illuminating the entire display. Most PC monitors are edge-lit, with a lamp illuminating the entire display. On "better" HDR monitors, this edge lighting is divided into at least eight zones that illuminate selected columns of the display as required.

As you can imagine, this illuminated pillar effect is undesirable, which is why manufacturers are experimenting with mini-LEDs: a lighting technology that does not illuminate the edge of the display, but rather an array with a large number of individually controllable LEDs placed directly behind the board. This lighting technology is called Full-Array Local Dimming (FALD), and in the case of the PG32UQX these are 1152 zones, which offers complex local dimming control.

In a certain way, FALD actually eliminates the major disadvantages of IPS panels: Backlight bleeding and IPS glow are no longer a problem, since the affected area is simply not illuminated when the display is black. The static contrast ratio is also no longer so relevant, since the area would simply not be illuminated if a black image was displayed.

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQXNiels Broekhuijsen / Digital Trends

Individual zones can reach a brightness of up to 1,400 nits when displaying highlights, and although I couldn't test that number due to the limitations of my tester, I'll use Asus & # 39; Word on it: Bright lights, sun, fire and others The lights really shot from the screen in almost breathtaking brightness, which was really a sight when an area to the left of this object was completely dark and showed an inky black night sky.

This kind of realistic brightness control is exactly what HDR is all about, and the PG32UQX does more than just deliver. The PG32UQX is a pleasure especially in games with higher frame rates and activated G-Sync. It's not the fastest panel, but it's a lot fast for non-competitive gameplay.

Launch a game that does HDR right and you will be in for a spectacle.

But the technology is not perfect. The IPS panel is only capable of blocking that much light, and although 1,152 zones are orders of magnitude superior to an 8-zone edge-lit display (which barely feels like HDR after the PG32UQX), they're still visible zones, in particular on darker scenes. Simple desktop use is the worst culprit for this – take a black or dark background and hover your mouse over it: you'll see a circular halo of blue light nervously walking around the mouse as it jumps between zones. Or take a white dialog box on a dark background, the edges of which have a strange yellow sheen. This effect can get used to, but it is difficult to ignore and is always reminded of how imperfect the technique is.

However, desktop use is not a really fair test, as individual elements are often much too small for the zones. It doesn't take into account the higher peak brightness levels, and Microsoft's HDR implementation has yet to be refined. However, the halo effect is far less pronounced in dynamic content such as games, movies, or TV shows. This is because individual bright elements are often larger, but also because there is simply a lot more movement going on on the screen.

Launch a game that does HDR right, go into the settings and properly calibrate the maximum darkness and maximum brightness so that the game engine properly addresses the monitor's HDR brightness sensitivity and you will be in for a spectacle. Trust me, you will forget about the halo effect in games and videos.

picture quality

Thanks to its IPS panel, the PG32UQX has great color performance, which, coupled with the 4K resolution at the 32-inch size, make it a dream as an editing display, especially if you are producing HDR content.

We tested the monitor in SDR mode because our tester does not support HDR and the color performance of the panel is impressive. At the beginning of the test, I came across sRGB color clamping, which set color coverage at a perfect 100% of sRGB, which is a much appreciated feature: unclamped sRGB colors can often look oversaturated on monitors with wide color gamut, so it's nice to be around to see the inclusion of this limiter.

When the terminal is switched off, the panel covered a decent 100% of the AdobeRGB and 97% of the DCI-P3 color space, with a Delta-E (difference to the real value) of 1.77 for the color accuracy. Any Delta E below 2 is considered good enough for professional work. The calibration of the display did not bring any notable improvements, but the performance out of the box is quite good.

Gamma performance was perfect too, although I wasn't impressed with the panel's native static contrast ratio. While IPS panels, especially flat samples, generally achieve a result of around 1000: 1, the best recorded contrast ratio I got when testing this sample was 810: 1, which is what I would expect from a curved IPS panel, that occurs due to a bit more bleeding to the print. But that's a flat screen.

Asus ROG Swift PG32UQXNiels Broekhuijsen / Digital Trends

However, this was tested without HDR and switched off the variable backlighting of the panel. We test in this way to properly assess the panel's native contrast ratio without automatic backlight changes affecting the result. With the variable backlight on, the contrast ratio was much better, producing really deep blacks even in SDR mode – and I think most users of this monitor will want to keep the variable backlight on. The only exception would be for color-critical work, as dimmed backlighting causes color shifts in the adjacent areas.

This begs the question of how important it really is that the panel's contrast performance isn't great, which is a difficult question to answer. On the one hand, it shouldn't matter with this type of backlighting, but a panel with a better static contrast performance would block the light better and thus counteract the haloing of the PG32UQX better.

Keep in mind that contrast performance varies widely from sample to sample, and since I have a feeling that this sample performs at the lower end of the spectrum while other reports indicate much higher contrast ratios, you are likely to be luckier.

How about OLED as an alternative?

If you're looking for the perfect HDR experience that doesn't halo under any circumstances, you're probably thinking of something like, "How about just getting an OLED panel instead?" And I wouldn't blame you for this. In fact, that's a good idea, but OLED panels have their own dangers.

The attraction would be that each pixel is its own light source. One pixel could be illuminated with peak brightness and the ones directly next to it pitch black. No halo, just pure and perfect brightness control over the entire panel. HDR would look great on the Windows desktop and in all movies and games without sacrificing visual quality.

But there are a few catches. First and foremost, there are no OLED PC gaming monitors, and the smallest OLED TVs are around 48 inches diagonal right now. This is a little too big to be used on a desk as a PC monitor, especially without a bulge. They're all shiny too, burn-in is a potential risk, especially with the amount of static content that affects PC desktop usage, and to reduce burn-in, peak brightness is also limited so you never quite get the "I have to" get look the other way because it's so bright "dive in."

Ultimately, the choice between mini-LED and OLED is a concession: which one you will tolerate and which one you will not. However, if you're wondering whether to get the PG32UQX or a content-consuming OLED TV, then the PG32UQX is probably not for you – an OLED TV might not last as long, but it costs less than half – and so do I. I'll bet the PG32UQX depreciates in value faster than an OLED reaches $ 0 in value.

Our opinion

The Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX is an amazing device. With an array of 1,152 mini-LED lighting zones, it creates an HDR experience that cannot be compared with any other PC monitor currently available on the market. There aren't many 32-inch 4K gaming monitors on the market anyway, so sitting in front of one that is not only this size but also has FALD lighting is like sitting in front of a unicorn. At least at this point, the PG32UQX offers the most breathtaking HDR performance available on a PC without relying on an OLED TV.

The PG32UQX is at the forefront of what PC monitor technology can do these days, and if you're looking for an HDR spectacle for your desk, it's the tool for the job. But like any cutting edge technology, it's far from perfect and in that regard the PG32UQX feels a bit like a prototype: there's no HDMI 2.1 so it's not exactly future proof and I feel the mini LED tech as it looks well now, will soon be out of date due to new developments. Add to that the usual panel performance lottery, no basic HDR brightness controls, and an annoying fan, and it quickly becomes a very difficult proposition to spend $ 2,999 on a monitor.

Are there alternatives?

No. There are currently no other PC monitors that offer fast 4K gaming performance paired with FALD and this color performance. Your other best choice is an OLED TV like LG's 48-inch C1 model, but it comes with its own tradeoffs, assuming you have enough desk space at all.

How long it will take?

From a functional point of view, I don't see any reason why the ROG Swift PG32UQX couldn't last for at least five years. But between the lack of HDMI 2.1 and the rapidly evolving alternative display technologies, you'll likely itch to replace it long before it breaks, especially if you're someone who loves to be at the forefront of technology.

Should I buy it?

For most players, no. It has a few weaknesses that are guaranteed to be a deal breaker for large groups of buyers, especially at this price point.

If you have deep pockets and just want the best HDR gaming monitor you can buy right now, then the ROG Swift PG32UQX is as good as it gets. But for most of us it's like an exotic sports car: I want to rent it just to experience it, but I don't want to own it.

Editor's recommendations



06 Feb
Blog

Acer Swift 3X Review: Intel’s Iris Xe Max Takes the Stage

Acer Swift 3x rating Iris xe max 1

"The Acer Swift 3X presents Intel's impressive Iris Xe Max in a top-class package."

  • Great job

  • Excellent battery life

  • Aesthetics are attractive

  • Rounded port selection

  • The display is overwhelming

  • The processing quality does not meet the premium standards

  • Bad gaming performance

Intel released its first discrete GPU in 20 years, the Iris Xe Max. However, that doesn't necessarily mean trying to compete with Nvidia for gaming laptops. It was not specifically designed to speed up games, but rather to work with the CPU and speed up a variety of other tasks. An interesting idea for thin and light laptops, right?

So far, the Iris Xe Max has come in three laptops, and we got one of them – the mid-range Acer Swift 3X – for review.

The Acer Swift 3X is not a cheap laptop in its Iris Xe Max configuration – at least not for a typical Swift laptop. At Amazon, it costs $ 1,240 with a Core i7-1165G7, 16 GB LPDDR4X RAM, 1 TB PCIe Solid State Drive (SSD) storage, and a 14-inch Full HD IPS display (1920 x 1080 ) in the aging school 16: 9 aspect ratio. You can spend $ 899 and get a version with only Iris Xe graphics, a Core i5-1135G7, 8 GB of RAM, and a 512 GB SSD.

Does the Iris Xe Max graphics make this laptop a must-have mid-range laptop?

performance

We start with the performance because in this test the rubber hits the road. Either the Iris Xe Max makes a difference to real-world tasks or it doesn't. This is the make-or-break test for the Acer Swift 3X. Reading the description of Intel's GPU will expose you to a variety of buzzwords and jargon, but we will skip most of them here. If you want to dig into the details of the new GPU, check out our guide to Intel's Discrete GPUs and our insight into the Iris Xe Max.

However, one term to keep in mind is deep link. This is Intel's term for technology that tightly ties the CPU and GPU (both Iris Xe and Iris Xe Max) together to enable some sophisticated functionality. Not all of them are yet activated or supported by today's software. So we focus on just one thing: Deep Link Dynamic Power Share. With this function, the system can "switch off" the GPU and supply the CPU with the entire system performance. With the Swift 3X and its 11th generation Core i7, more than 28 watts of power and heat can be delivered to the CPU if required, which should theoretically accelerate CPU-intensive tasks.

The Acer Swift 3X occasionally even questions the performance of H-series machines.

It works? Yes, it actually does. The Swift 3X was competitive in all of our performance benchmarks and occasionally took the crown for the fastest Tiger Lake laptop we tested. This makes it one of the fastest laptops in the U series and occasionally even challenges machines from the H series.

It can't compete with AMD's Ryzen 4000 (or the upcoming Ryzen 5000 laptops) in all cases, but it does show up a lot stronger than most non-Max laptops. However, is that enough to make Iris Xe Max an exciting development? Perhaps not at this point – the GPU on its own makes the Acer Swift 3X a fast laptop, but not without challengers in AMD and Apple, which are faster and either cheaper, thinner and lighter, or both. We'll have to wait and see what other features Iris Xe Max has to offer before we can speak of an unconditional success.

We start with Cinebench R23, where the Swift 3X scored 5944 points in multi-core mode and 1496 points in single-core mode. I tried the utility to switch from optimized mode to performance mode and I didn't see much of a difference unlike some others (e.g. the HP Command Center utility in the Specter x360 14) that have greater impact. This multi-core score is the fastest we've seen in an Intel U-Series CPU. It beats faster Core i7-1185G7 laptops like the MSI Prestige 14 Evo (5,789) and the Lenovo Yoga 9i 14 in its more effective performance mode (4,988).

Note that with a 45-watt Core i7-10750H, the Razer Blade scored 6,166, meaning the Swift 3X was in close proximity to a much faster CPU.

In Geekbench 5, the Swift 3X wasn't quite as strong – probably because Dynamic Power Share has the greatest impact on longer, sustained processes. The Swift 3X scored 1,551 points in the single-core test and 5,847 points in the multi-core test. The Prestige 14 Evo was slightly faster (1,593 and 5,904), as was the Intel Tiger Lake reference laptop, which is based on the same MSI computer (1,563 and 5,995). The Acer Swift 5 with the same CPU as the Swift 3X scored higher in the single-core test with 1,580 and almost as high in the multi-core test with 5,836. Interestingly, the Swift 3X managed to outperform the Lenovo Yoga 9i 15 with a Core i7-10750H (1,285 and 5,551).

In our handbrake test, which encodes a 420MB video as H.265, the Swift 3X finished the process in 2 minutes and 36 seconds, which is again (technically) the fastest among Intel U-series laptops. The Prestige 14 Evo – also with its faster CPU – took four seconds longer, which resulted in a virtual tie. Note that the Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 with an AMD Ryzen 4800U processor takes 2.2 minutes to complete. This means that while Iris Xe Max speeds up Tiger Lake's performance, it cannot compete with AMD on some tasks.

Finally, I ran the PCMark 10 Complete benchmark, where the Swift 3X scored 5,117 points. This is the second highest score in our laptop database, only behind the Lenovo Yoga 9i 15. The individual essentials, productivity and creation values ​​of the Swift 3X were not all individually highest, but were in the upper range. To examine the creation portion of the test, which focuses on photo editing, video rendering and playback, and video editing, the Swift 3X had the highest score (5,334) of any U-series laptops we tested – shown once again, Deep Link does its Job.

The closest was the Prestige Evo 14 with 5036 points. This is a good sign of performance in Adobe apps and other creative tools, which will only improve as more Deep Link features are introduced. Simply put, the Swift 3X did very well in this benchmark.

Intel didn't specifically design the Iris Xe Max to speed up modern games.

Intel's Iris Xe Max has a real impact on a laptop's performance even at this early stage. The Swift 3X screams through productivity tasks and is well suited for creative tasks for a U-series CPU. If you're looking for the fastest CPU performance in an Intel-based ultrabook, contrary to your intuition, you should choose a model that includes Intel's discrete GPU.

If you're looking for a gaming laptop, as mentioned in the introduction, Intel didn't specifically design the Iris Xe Max for speeding up modern games. With some titles it works well, with others Intel transfers the order to the Iris Xe, which is also on board. The Iris Xe Max did well in the 3DMark Time Spy benchmark with 1,889, which is a few hundred points above the typical Iris Xe GPU.

In Fortnite, however, the Max managed 34 fps (frames per second) with 1080p and high graphics and 22 fps with epic graphics. This is comparable to the Yoga 9i 14, which achieved 40 fps and 27 fps in performance mode, and the MSI Prestige 14 Evo, which achieved 42 fps and 28 fps. Fortnite is clearly a title that the Iris Xe Max doesn't shine on.

design

Acer didn't just copy the design of the non-Max Acer Swift 3 when creating the Swift 3X. There are some similarities, but the Swift 3X looks very different, including a choice between Steam Blue (my review unit) and Safari Gold instead of plain utility silver.

The hinge has also been redesigned and decorated in an “electric blue” that draws attention to the laptop lid. And the back corners have a nice angularity that adds to the aesthetics. However, it is not an attention seeker like the HP Specter x360 14. The bezels disappoint a bit. First, they're not as small as some other modern day laptops, with a screen-to-body ratio of 84% (many exceed 90%), and second, they're made of plastic rather than behind the glass. This gives the laptop a no-nonsense look when viewed from the front.

The Swift 3X isn't quite as slim as some of its 14-inch competitors, either.

The construction doesn't quite match the standard of many other premium laptops. The chassis is made entirely of aluminum, but the lid is quite flexible and the keyboard deck has some flex. However, the underside of the chassis is robust. The hinge is very stiff and requires both hands to open the laptop – in contrast to the Dell XPS 13, which can be easily opened with one hand – but holds the display firmly in place. Overall, I'd say the build quality is more in the mid-range than the premium range, which makes the laptop more attractive than the $ 1,200 on my review unit at a starting price of $ 899. The MSI Prestige 14 Evo, for example, is the same price – without the Iris Xe Max, of course – and feels a lot more solid than the Swift 3X.

The Swift 3X isn't quite as slim as some of its 14-inch competitors, either. It comes in at 0.71 inches thick and weighs 3.02 pounds. This compares to the Prestige 14 Evo at 0.63 inches at 2.85 pounds, the Asus ZenBook 14 UX425 at 0.54 inches and 2.58 pounds, and the Acer Swift 5 at 0.59 inches and 2.31 pounds. It's not that the Swift 3X is a humorous ultrabook – it just doesn't feel as thin and light as some of the other options.

Finally, the Swift 3X offers a solid range of connectivity options. On the left side of the case, you'll find a proprietary power port (which will likely provide enough juice for the Iris Xe Max), a full-size HDMI 2.0 port, a USB-A 3.2 port, and a USB-C port with Thunderbolt 4 On the right side you will find another USB-A 3.2 port and a 3.5 mm audio jack. What you won't find is an SD card reader. This is a bummer as this machine is at least partially geared towards creative types.

The wireless connection is provided via Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.1.

display

The Swift 3X has a 14-inch Full HD 16: 9 IPS display which, according to my colorimeter, is generally a little below average for premium laptops. For example, the color gamut is a bit narrow at 95% of sRGB and 71% of AdobeRGB (premium laptops usually achieve 97% and 75%, respectively). However, the color accuracy is quite good at 1.18, with 1.0 or less being considered excellent.

At the same time, the brightness is 284 nits below our 300 NIT threshold, which ensures that a display with the typical bright office environment lighting is visible. And the worst contrast is at 740: 1, where many premium laptops are at 1000: 1 or more, or at least very close to it. The combination of brightness, low contrast and a narrow color gamut gives the display a subdued appearance.

Overall, the display is certainly good for productivity work and watching Netflix, but it won't blow your mind. Throw in the 16: 9 aspect ratio when many competitors are switching to higher ratios like 16:10 and 3: 2 and the Swift 3X's display isn't exactly impressive.

Audio is closer to par, with two downward-facing speakers that provide enough volume for YouTube videos but not enough for watching a Netflix movie with friends. The mids and highs are fine, but the bass is missing. You want to use headphones or bluetooth speakers for Netflix binging and listening to music.

Keyboard and touchpad

It appears that Acer pulled the keyboard from the previous Acer Swift 3. The Swift 3X has the same appearance, meaning the keycaps are smaller, which in my experience leads to a search for keys. The mechanism is very clicky and requires a bit of pressure to intervene, but offers a solid ground effect. It depends on preference, of course, but I would rate the keyboard as being behind the HP Specter x360 14 and Dell XPS 13 in terms of accuracy and general typing speed.

The touchpad is small but functional. The surface is pleasant to swipe and the keys respond, but are a bit loud. Thanks to the Microsoft Precision touchpad drivers, multi-touch gestures react quickly and precisely. There is no touch display which is a shame for me personally. I miss touch when it's not there, especially for scrolling long web pages and tapping the occasional on-screen button.

Windows 10 Hello login support without a password is provided by a fingerprint reader in the upper right corner of the keyboard deck. It was quick and accurate in my tests.

Battery life

You'd think that 59 watt hours of battery life in a 14-inch laptop and very fast CPU performance could result in poor battery life. You'd be wrong as the Swift 3X is way behind the nine hours of typical Evo spec use.

In our web benchmark, which runs through a number of popular websites before the laptop goes to sleep, the Swift 3X lasted 11.5 hours. The Lenovo Yoga 9i 14 outperformed this by more than an hour and the MSI Prestige 14 Evo by almost four hours. Next, I went through our video test grinding a Full HD Avengers trailer and the Swift 3X lasted about 15.75 hours, a strong score that is still nearly three hours less than the Yoga 9i 14 and 30 minutes less than the MSI Prestige 14 Evo was.

In the battery test for PCMark 10 applications, the Swift 3X lasted 14 hours, second only to the Yoga 9i 14 in our database and almost four hours longer than the Prestige 14 Evo. In the PCMark 10 gaming test, which stresses both the CPU and the GPU, the Swift 3X only lasted 1.5 hours, which was the worst, with the Prestige 14 Evo and Dell XPS 13 finishing second and third. Most other laptops lasted about an hour longer than the Swift 3X in this test.

Overall, the Swift 3X showed solid battery life that lasted a full day with no issues, at least as long as you don't push the CPU and GPU. Again, the Swift 3X exceeds the Intel Evo certification requirements of nine hours of typical use, which not every Evo-certified laptop we tested has achieved.

Our opinion

The Acer Swift 3X on its own is a pretty mundane, high-budget, low-midrange ultrabook without considering the inclusion of the Iris Xe Max. The components are okay for $ 1,200, but the build quality and keyboard aren't snuff-safe.

Take advantage of the great CPU performance of the Iris Xe Max and Deep Link, plus long battery life, and the Swift 3X becomes a more attractive option. It's a good choice for anyone who wants to occasionally encode video but don't want to spend the money on a laptop with a 45 watt CPU and faster discrete GPU.

Are there alternatives?

The MSI Prestige 14 Evo is almost as fast as the Swift 3X without the Iris Xe Max on board and costs the same. It's also thinner, lighter, better built, and better looking. However, the Swift 3X offers better battery life.

If you are looking for the ultimate in CPU performance, then you should take a look at an AMD Ryzen 4000 laptop (soon to be Ryzen 5000). One option today is the Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 with the Ryzen 7 4800U. It's cheaper than the Swift 3X, but it offers much faster CPU performance and extends battery life.

Finally, the Dell XPS 13 9310 remains a solid competitor, as is the case with every laptop we test in the 13- or 14-inch class. It has a smaller display, but a productivity-friendly aspect ratio of 16:10. The XPS 13 is also significantly better built, also offers a superior display, and can be configured with more RAM and storage.

How long it will take?

The Acer Swift 3X is not the most rugged notebook we've tested, but it should offer years of reliable service. The components are up to date which is a plus, but the 1 year warranty (industry standard) is, as usual, too short.

Should you buy it?

No. Iris Xe Max graphics offer the best CPU performance you can get in an Intel-based ultrabook. However, if CPU performance is most important to you, there are other, better options. And apart from the equipment of the Iris Xe Max, the Swift 3X cannot be particularly highlighted.

Editor's recommendations




09 Nov
Blog

Acer Swift 5 2020 Review: Tiger Lake Comes Into Its Own

Acer Swift 5 in late 2020

Acer Swift 5 Intel EVO Thin & Light Laptop

"The Swift 5 is light and fast, making it a comfortable 14-inch workhorse to take with you."

  • A performance that fulfills Tiger Lake's promise

  • Very thin and light

  • Solid build quality

  • Good keyboard and touchpad

  • Below average battery life

  • A bit expensive

I haven't evaluated many Intel Tiger Lake systems, but I've seen enough to know that there are kinks that need fixing. So far, there hasn't been a Tiger Lake laptop (officially reviewed or just benchmarked) that performed as I expected. Now Acer has released its latest Swift 5 based on the Tiger Lake platform – this isn't the only update to this premium microlight – and there is one more example that needs to be evaluated.

Acer sent me a well-configured machine with an 11th generation quad-core Intel Core i7-1165G7, 16 GB of RAM, a 1 TB PCIe solid-state drive (SSD) and a Full HD 14 Inch IPS display. This Swift 5 configuration costs $ 1,300 on Amazon and includes some features that stand out from the crowd of premium laptops. My biggest question, however, is: has a Tiger Lake laptop finally got the performance of the chipset?

performance

Acer Swift 5 late 2020 ventMark Coppock / Digital Trends

Don't waste time answering this question: so far, the Acer Swift 5 is the fastest Tiger Lake system I have personally reviewed or rated, and in Digital Trends' experience, it only gets (hardly) from the Tiger Lake reference machine surpassed that Intel sent us to see (which uses the faster Core i7-1185G7).

Geekbench 5 tells part of the story. The Swift 5 achieved 1,580 points in the single-core test and 5,836 points in the multi-core test. The higher-clocked reference laptop scored 1,563 and 5,995 points, which means the Swift 5 could more than keep up. Compared to the Asus ZenBook Flip S, which managed 1535 and 4913, the Swift 5 was significantly faster in the multi-core test. In some contexts, consider that the Microsoft Surface Book 3 13 with a 10th generation Core i7-1065G7 only scored 1,316 and 4,825 points.

However, in our more realistic tests, the Swift 5 performed well. First off, in our handbrake test, which encodes a 420MB video as H.265, the Swift 5 took a little over three minutes to complete. The Intel reference machine was only 17 seconds faster. The Asus ZenBook 14 UX425EA with the Core i7-1165G7 lasted four minutes in normal mode and 27 seconds longer than the Swift 5 in performance mode. The ZenBook Flip S also lasted almost exactly four minutes. The Microsoft Surface Book 3 13 also took four minutes, which shows that Tiger Lake is not yet consistently impressive in the performance department.

Next, I tested the Swift 5 in Cinebench 20. He scored 2,091 in multi-core and 542 in single-core mode. The ZenBook 14 was slower in both normal (1,746 and 497) and performance modes (1,766 and 498), and the ZenBook Flip S fell behind at 1,264 and 482, respectively. The Surface Book 3 13 managed 1433 and 429, which means that only one of these other Tiger Lake laptops was slightly faster than the Ivy Lake Surface Book 3, the Swift 5 was a lot faster. Then consider that the Intel reference laptop scored 2092 and 570 in Cinebench 20, which means the Swift 5 managed to stay close to the higher-clocked Tiger Lake machine again.

It's also educational to compare the Swift 5 to AMD Ryzen 4000 laptops. In Handbrake, the Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 with the Ryzen 7 4800U finished the test in about two minutes, a full minute faster than the Swift 5. The Cinebench scores were 3,255 and 482, much faster in multi-core mode than in the Swift 5 managed to improve it in single core mode. While Tiger Lake has the potential to beat its 10th generation predecessors, it can't compete with AMD's latest Ryzen chips on many tasks.

However, there is one area where Tiger Lake competes well with AMD's chips – Adobe applications. I ran our Premiere Pro test encoding a two minute 4K video on the Swift 5 and it took 11 minutes and 52 seconds. That's not fast compared to Intel's 45-watt parts, which can get the job done in under three minutes in some cases, but it's a lot faster than the Ryzen 7 CPU in the IdeaPad Slim 7, which is more than one Hour needed. The Intel Tiger Lake reference system lasted 11 minutes and 13 seconds, so the Swift 5 was competitive again. If you're an Adobe user, don't assume that an AMD system will better meet your performance needs.

If you're expecting enhanced gaming from the Swift 5 thanks to Tiger Lake and Intel's Iris Xe graphics, you're in luck. You get better performance than Intel's previous Iris Plus graphics and almost as fast performance as a discrete GPU like the Nvidia GeForce MX350. I saw 53 frames per second in Civilization VI at 1080p and medium graphics and 27 fps on ultra graphics. This exceeds the Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 7 (Intel version) with the MX350 with medium graphics by 2 fps. In Fortnite, the only other game I tested, the Swift 5 managed 31 fps at 1080p and high graphics that dropped to 22 fps for epic graphics. The IdeaPad Slim 7 achieved 37 fps with high graphics and 24 fps with epic graphics. The bottom line is that you can play some modern titles at 1080p if you keep the graphical details in check – a serious improvement over the previous generation from Intel.

In short, the Swift 5 shows what Tiger Lake can do, at least when compared to the previous version of Intel CPUs. It's very quick in practice and I certainly didn't notice any slowdowns no matter what I threw at it during my review. As more Tiger Lake systems continue to be released and the inevitable initial issues with the chipset are fixed, this will be a significant upgrade for Intel users. And the Swift 5 will be hunting right there.

design

Acer Swift 5 in late 2020Mark Coppock / Digital Trends

The Swift 5 was updated with 10th generation CPUs in early 2020, but was otherwise identical to the 2019 version. The latest model of the Swift 5 brings more changes than just an update for Tiger Lake.

First, it's a little heavier at 2.31 pounds compared to last time versus 2.18 pounds. That said, it's still a remarkably light 14-inch laptop, just not quite as much as the last version. However, it's still 0.59 inches thick, which makes it a very thin laptop too. That's comparable to the ZenBook 14 at 2.58 pounds and 0.54 inches. In the thin-and-light category, 14-inch laptops have clearly proven their worth. The latest Swift 5 also benefits from smaller bezels all around (the chin is only slightly larger than some laptops with tiny bezels, but not by much), resulting in a 90% screen-to-body ratio. This is competitive with the latest Dell XPS 13, which weighs 2.65 pounds and is 0.58 inches thick, and is better than the 84.5% of the previous Swift 5.

The low weight of the Swift 5 is due to its construction from magnesium-lithium and magnesium-aluminum alloys. According to Acer, these materials are two to four times stronger than aluminum, but weigh 20-35% less. Certainly the Swift 5 feels sturdy, with a lid that won't bend if you don't apply too much pressure, a keyboard deck that is as stiff as any other, and a lower case that is just as stiff as any Has compliance. So the Swift 5 feels light, but it doesn't feel cheap. This is what you get when you use plastic to cut the pounds. I would love to see the hinge redesigned so that it can be opened with one hand, but it stays nicely in place.

The laptop's durability extends to the case surface, where Acer used a micro-arc oxidation process to create a finish that is hard as ceramic and resists scratching and corrosion. That's a good thing, because my test device has the optional mist green color (gold is the other option), which is quite subtle and elegant and deserves protection. The case itself is relatively simple in the gem-cut design compared to extremes like HP's Specter x360 line, but the color – including the yellow accents and keyboard lettering – and angles make the laptop look good overall.

The surface of the housing is not only more durable, but also more resistant to microbes. Acer created the first complete antimicrobial laptop solution that includes two main features that I have never seen on any other computer. First, there is a silver ion antimicrobial agent in a coating on the surface of the case, keyboard, hinge, fingerprint reader, and even the labels attached to the laptop. Even the rubber feet are made from an antimicrobial silver ion material. Second, the screen uses Corning's Gorilla Antimicrobial Glass, the world's first to bake silver ions for antimicrobial properties.

I won't go into all the details here – you can visit this page to learn more – but the overall solution promises a reduction rate of greater than 99.9% that involves a "broad spectrum of bacteria". Note that this does not say anything about viruses, so to my knowledge the solution does not protect against the coronavirus that is causing COVID-19. Even so, Acer is the first to take you seriously if you want your laptop to be bacteria-free.

Note that the Swift 5 is Intel Evo certified. That promises a few things, including an 11th generation CPU (Natch), Thunderbolt 4 support, constant battery responsiveness, waking up from hibernation in less than a second, nine or more hours of battery life, and four hours with just 30 Minutes charging time. As we'll see later, I'm not sure if the laptop lives up to the promise of actual battery life, but it does seem to meet the rest of the Evo certification requirements.

Finally, connectivity with the thin and light Swift 5 is a strong point. On the left is a proprietary power port (but the laptop charges via USB-C), a full-size HDMI 2.0 port with HDCP support, a USB-A 3.2 port, and a USB-C port with Thunderbolt 4 -Support. On the right side there is a Kensington lock port, a USB-A 3.2 port and a 3.5 mm audio jack. Unfortunately, there is no SD card reader, which is disappointing.

display

Acer Swift 5 late 2020 adMark Coppock / Digital Trends

We have reached a point where most premium laptops (and many budget computers) have very good displays that fall within a relatively narrow range on most objective criteria. According to my colorimeter, this is almost exactly where the Swift 5 is rated – it's "average," but today's average makes a nice display for everyone but creatives who need the widest, most accurate colors.

First, the Swift 5's 14-inch touch-enabled display exceeded our preferred brightness threshold of 300 nits at 327 nits, and its contrast ratio barely missed our preferred 1000: 1 brightness at 950: 1. This is a great indicator for productivity work unless you are working outdoors in direct sunlight. An example of a similar laptop with a slightly better display in these metrics is the Asus ZenBook 14 UX425 with its 352 nits and a contrast ratio of 1060: 1. The Lenovo ThinkPad X13 Yoga is an example of that with just 274 nits and 720: 1 Opposite.

Next, the Swift 5's colors are good, but not great, just like most premium laptops. The coverage of the sRGB color gamut is 96% and 73% of the AdobeRGB color gamut. Most premium laptops are similar to the ZenBook 14 with 94% sRGB and 72% AdobeRGB. You have to jump to something like the Dell XPS 15's 4K display, with 100% coverage of both color gamuts, to get a display that creatives crave. The Swift 5 achieved a spot color accuracy of DeltaE of 1.27, with anything below 1.0 indistinguishable to the human eye and considered excellent. Note that the Dell XPS display had a DeltaE of just 0.73%, while the ZenBook 14 was slightly higher than the Swift 5 at 1.42%.

In real use, the Swift 5's display was a pleasure, with lots of brightness for my needs and black text that jumped off the side thanks to the (almost) excellent contrast ratio. Binging Netflix was pleasant enough thanks to a perfect gamma of 2.2 that nothing was too light or too dark. I have no complaints about the display.

The audio quality wasn't quite up to standard. First, the two speakers couldn't produce much volume even though they were 100% undistorted. The mids and highs were fine, but (as usual) the bass was missing. The audio system works well for occasional viewing of YouTube videos. However, if you want to watch TV shows, movies, or listen to music, consider using headphones or external speakers.

Keyboard and touchpad

Acer Swift 5 late 2020 keyboard and touchpadMark Coppock / Digital Trends

The standard island keyboard is well spaced and has keycaps that were a little too small for my taste. The mechanism had a nice click but was a little loose, so I didn't find it quite as precise as my favorite keyboards, HP's Specter keyboard and the Magic keyboard on Apple's latest MacBooks. As a writer, I'm particularly sensitive to this aspect of laptop design, and while I wasn't thrilled with the Swift 5, it will likely make most users happy.

I like the color scheme with pale yellow letters and backlighting (only on and off unfortunately) that works in both light and dark environments. This is an improvement over some keyboards, like that of the latest Dell XPS 13, which has a backlight that makes it almost impossible to read the letters when they are on and with ambient lighting.

The touchpad is medium in size and uses Microsoft's Precision touchpad drivers. As such, it was able to swipe and use Windows 10's multi-touch gestures – something that can be said about most touchpads lately. The touch display was accurate, responsive, and very welcome.

Windows 10 Hello support was provided by a fingerprint reader on the top right of the touchpad. It was quick and accurate during my tests.

Battery life

Acer Swift 5 late 2020 side viewMark Coppock / Digital Trends

The Swift 5 packs 56 watt hours of battery capacity into its thin frame, an average amount for a laptop with a 14-inch full HD display. We don't have that much experience with Tiger Lake efficiency so I wasn't sure what to expect.

We usually use the Basemark web benchmark to test a laptop's battery life when the CPU and GPU are under stress. So far, however, every Tiger Lake laptop I've tested, including the Swift 5, won't complete this review. So I can't tell how long the laptop will last if you work hard.

In our web benchmark, which runs through a number of complex websites and is the best indicator of battery life in our tests, the Swift 5 lasted just under eight hours. This is an average score topped by the Dell XPS 13 with its 10th Gen Core i7 that lasted over 11 hours and the Tiger Lake Asus ZenBook 14 UX425EA that lasted almost 10 hours. It is debatable whether the Swift 5 meets the Evo requirement of nine hours of productivity life – that depends entirely on your workflow.

Finally, the Swift 5 lasted 11.5 hours in our video test grinding a Full HD Avengers trailer. The XPS 13 lasted 14.5 hours and the ZenBook 14 12.25 hours, which means the Swift 5 also fell behind in this test.

Ultimately, the battery life was a little disappointing, but not terrible. If you don't put that heavy load on the CPU and GPU, you might be able to do it for a full day. However, if your tasks are demanding, you need to keep your power adapter with you.

Our opinion

The Swift 5 is better than the previous generation in everything but weight and isn't exactly heavy. It makes extensive use of Intel's Tiger Lake platform and uses some innovative techniques to make the case surface more robust and resistant to microbes.

It's also a nice looking laptop and has some weaknesses. When it comes to 14-inch laptops, the Swift 5 is one of the best on the market today.

Are there alternatives?

The Asus ZenBook 14 UX425EA is an obvious competitor to the Swift 5. It's almost as fast if you hold it in Performance mode, but then the fans spin louder and more frequently than the Swift 5. It's just as well built and looks just as good and also offers excellent input options.

If you want the flexibility of a 2-in-1 device, the HP Specter x360 13 is a great alternative. It uses Intel's latest generation of chips, so it's not as fast, but it has a more eye-catching appearance, stunning OLED display, and the morphing nature of a 2-in-1 device.

Finally, you can consider the Dell XPS 13, one of the best laptops out there. It was recently updated to Tiger Lake and features one of the best laptop designs out there. It's a bit more expensive and has a slightly smaller screen, but those may be tradeoffs worth making.

How long it will take?

The Swift 5 is well built and robust, with modern components that will meet your productivity needs for years to come. The one-year warranty is disappointing on a premium laptop, but it is industry standard.

Should you buy it?

Yes. The Swift 5 is thin, light and powerful. It is the first Tiger Lake notebook we tested that lives up to the chip's performance promise.

Editor's recommendations




04 Nov
Blog

Asus ROG Swift 360Hz Review: Only Skill Will Hold You Back

asus rog 360hz pg259qnr review dsc02115

Asus ROG Swift 360Hz PG259QNR

"The Asus ROG Swift 360Hz PG259QNR is a great, competitive gaming monitor."

  • Unmatched clarity of movement

  • Very low entry delay

  • Buttery, fluid gameplay

  • Excellent stable stand

  • Including desk clamp

  • 1080p only

  • Limited mainstream appeal

When buying a new gaming monitor, you need to find the perfect balance between price, picture quality, gaming performance, and features. Finding the best monitor for all of your needs can be difficult. But what if all you care about is absolute gaming performance and nothing else?

Asus' new ROG Swift PG259QNR may fit your bill just right. Be warned, however, that thanks to its ultra-fast 360Hz 1080p display, this monitor is a one-trick pony intended only for the most competitive gamers.

design

As a monitor designed for competitive gameplay, two things stand out. First and foremost, it is not very large at just 24.5 inches diagonally. More importantly, the stand is set up like a tank.

You might not think it matters, and while I'd normally agree with you, competitive gameplay is quite a physical activity. From quick mouse movements to quick slamming of the keyboard, your movements can jolt your desk, and the vast majority of monitors jiggle like fresh jelly.

But not the PG259QNR. The stand Asus built for this display absolutely plants it on your desk and won't let it move no matter how aggressive you get with your gameplay.

For those who don't like a large stand, the display also comes with a desk clamp that replaces the funky stand, as most monitor arms again allow too much wobble. So we can't help it that VESA mounts are not supported.

Regardless of your choice, the stand offers a range of settings including height, tilt, rotate to portrait, and swivel. This is impressive when you consider the stability of the monitor. Rotating it to portrait is of course not required, but it helps if you connect the cables after you have run them through the stand.

The ROG Swift 360Hz isn't afraid to take a stand.

This display has no curve, and its 24.5-inch size may seem small to some gamers. For competitive people, however, this means that they can see the entire game without moving their heads. If you've ever wondered why 24-inch monitors are popular in tournaments, now you know.

All in all, this is one of the most aggressive displays I've seen, with tons of accents and a huge RGB LIT Asus ROG logo on the back that engulfs a quarter of the property.

Connections and controls

There isn't much connectivity to be found on the PG259QNR, but it doesn't have to be. You want to use the DisplayPort 1.4a interface to get the most out of this monitor, as the HDMI 2.0 connection limits the maximum refresh rate to "only" 240 Hz instead of the full 360 Hz. DisplayPort also enables G-Sync at 1 Hz to 360 Hz. This is the largest range I've seen on a monitor.

Next to these two inputs there is a power connection socket that is fed by a small external 90 watt power module. There is also a headphone jack and a two-port USB hub with an upstream connection to your PC.

Asus' on-screen display (OSD) is not particularly attractive, but it is functional and extremely easy to navigate. The monitor has a main direction switch that will bring up the main menu when it is interacted with in any way. This menu contains segments for activating Nvidia Reflex Analyzer, a game menu with game-related settings like FPS counter, fraudulent crosshair, dark gain, overdrive settings and more.

Of course, there are also settings to adjust brightness, contrast and color, as well as options for shortcuts, lighting effects and general monitor settings.

picture quality

When it comes to image quality, you may be wondering why the display doesn't come as a QHD monitor. After all, 1080p isn't very sharp, and today's GPUs should be powerful enough to run popular esports titles at high frame rates at QHD.

There's a simple reason: bandwidth. DisplayPort 1.4a offers just enough bandwidth to transmit 1080p at 360 Hz to the monitor. Until we get a new interface or a manufacturer implements DSC (Display Stream Compression), 1080p is the upper limit if you want a 360 Hz monitor. Since the panel is not very large, the picture still looks quite sharp.

Asus has equipped the PG259QNR with an IPS panel, which means that the viewing angles are excellent. Slight bleeding and IPS glow are minimal on our sample and much better than curved ultrawide monitors. The PG259QNR produces a very consistent, even and clean image.

But where IPS normally produces star colors, it seems that some sacrifice had to be made with this panel. It's by no means terrible, but with coverage of 98% of the sRGB space and 73% of the AdobeRGB and DCI-P3 space as tested on our Spyder X Elite, you won't be blown away with vibrancy. saturated colors.

We also tested the color accuracy, which resulted in a Delta-E (Difference from Real) of 2.12 in the standard “Racing” mode, with the sRGB profile achieving a better result of 1.68. Note that sRGB mode disables brightness control and instead uses the built-in light sensor to determine the brightness.

Oddly enough, both values ​​are worse than the calibration report provided by Asus, which stated a Delta-E of 0.53. However, this may be due to different devices and test conditions. Either way, the PG259QNR produces accurate colors so you can use it for non-professional color grading if necessary.

The Asus PG259QNR delivers too much in terms of brightness and contrast performance.

The display is characterized by brightness and contrast. Asus claims a brightness of 400 cd / m2, but our sample exceeded 415 cd / m2. The panel also exceeded the stated contrast ratio with a contrast of 1200: 1, which is an impressive performance for an IPS panel. The white point was exactly at 6500K, which is great.

We calibrated the monitor to see if we could improve its performance but made few gains. Only the color accuracy has been improved to 1.35 so calibrating the PG259QNR can produce some gains.

But let's face it, you're not buying this monitor anyway because it can reproduce colors, and its color rendering is more than enough for competitive gameplay. Given this monitor's focus on the raw refresh rate, Asus could have cut the color accuracy and contrast – but thankfully, it didn't.

Gaming performance

It's time to get down to the brass nails and talk about what really matters – gaming performance. In that regard, the PG259QNR is at home with a mind-boggling 360Hz refresh rate. You are probably wondering why you need 360 Hz and if you can tell the difference.

At 360 Hz it's not about fluidity and smoothness. It's about reducing latency

If you are not a competitive gamer this monitor is not for you. The jump from 144 Hz to 360 Hz takes a trained eye to see, but at 360 Hz it's not really about increasing fluidity and smoothness. Rather, the point of this insanely high refresh rate is to reduce latency so you can see the enemy before they can see you. The difference is only milliseconds (we're talking less than 10 milliseconds compared to a 144Hz display) but that's a lot in the competitive world.

Now, I'm not a competitive gamer (I just don't have the time or the skills) but I asked a veteran friend to try this monitor out in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and you should have seen the grin on his face. He landed shot after shot, shot after shot, and definitely felt like a better player compared to his 144Hz panel. The PG259QNR is for when you want to know that the only thing holding you back is your skills.

This monitor is so fast that all you can do is hold back your skills.

There is one thing to keep in mind when viewing this ad. We tested it on a PC with an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and an Nvidia RTX 2080 Super graphics card. When we launched Destiny 2, the highest frame rate this system managed was around 170 FPS with the graphics at the lowest settings. Even in CS: GO, we only occasionally jumped over 300 FPS.

If you are going to buy this display, make sure your system has a processor with a very powerful single core performance.

So I checked out the Task Manager to see what happened and this confirmed my suspicions. The CPU had a bottleneck in the system, as only a few cores worked almost 100% and the graphics card was used to around 70 or 80 percent, often even less. I picked the 3900X for its multi-core performance, but it's not as powerful as Intel's alternatives on single-core, and games rely on that to get really high frame rates at low resolutions like these.

When buying this display make sure you have a processor like Intel Core i9-9900K, Core i9-10900K, or wait for AMD's Ryzen 5000 CPUs as these are expected to deliver amazing single-core performance.

Of course, even if you don't, you will still benefit from this advertisement. You don't have to hit 360 FPS to take advantage of it as you will benefit from reduced latency and become a more competitive gamer even at lower frame rates.

Nvidia Reflex Latency Analyzer

As I said, the PG259QNR is all about latency, which is why Nvidia's Reflex Analyzer technology is packaged in. This is essentially an extension of the G-Sync module that allows you to measure the time from click to display. When combined with the right hardware, you can numerically display the benefits of faster viewing. We tested the function with Destiny 2 and the ROG Chakram Core mouse from Asus. (You should note that not many games are currently supported.)

You use it by connecting the monitor with DisplayPort and the USB hub to your PC, and then connecting the compatible mouse to the red USB port on the monitor. This allows the monitor to recognize when you click. Then activate the Reflex Analyzer via the OSD of the monitor, which displays a detection rectangle that you place over the trigger, the nozzle or the part of your weapon that reacts first so that the monitor can recognize when your click is visible on the screen Changes.

With the Nvidia Reflex Analyzer, you can be sure that you will see your actions as soon as possible.

With this option in Destiny 2 with the minimum settings, we achieved a response time of approx. 14 milliseconds. Increasing the settings to the highest value increased this number to about 21 ms. This isn't a huge difference, but it can be the difference between landing a shot or landing a shot. We couldn't run these tests in CS: GO because the game is incompatible.

However, if you are not using an RTX 2080 Super but a GTX 16 series card, the latency will be longer. The same goes for other factors like graphics settings or background tasks that can decrease your frame rate. Ultimately, it's just a tool that lets you see the real latency benefits of upgrading your system or changing game settings, rather than estimating latency based on your frame rate.

Our opinion

Asus' ROG Swift 360Hz PG259QNR is an extremely fast gaming monitor that shows the entire view in a relatively small area so you can see everything at once. With a response time of 360 Hz and 1 ms it ensures that you see the enemy and shoot them before they see you. This can help you get a head start on competitive online games.

However, at $ 699, the PG259QNR isn't affordable. So you have to wonder if you need a monitor as fast as this or if you prefer something more immersive like an ultrawide display.

Are there alternatives?

Yes. MSI is expected to launch its Oculux NXG253R monitor with similar specs for $ 799 in November. Acer built the Predator X25, which also has a 360 Hz panel. If you don't mind dropping to 240 Hz to save real cash, Dell's Alienware 25 is a great half-price option.

How long it will take?

The Asus PG259QNR should last as long as any monitor – at least five years. However, if you're using it for competitive gameplay, don't be surprised if something even faster pops up in esports.

Should I buy it?

Yes. It's not for everyone, but the Asus ROG Swift 360Hz PG259QNR absolutely raises the bar for competitive gaming monitors while avoiding any major issues that could affect the fun.

Editor's recommendations




08 May
Blog

Acer Swift 3 (2020) Review: Eight-Core Ryzen Laptop For $650

acer swift 3 2020 review ryzen

"The Acer Swift 3 with Ryzen 4000 is the most powerful budget notebook to date."

  • Solid build quality

  • Top performance

  • Great value for money

  • Comfortable keyboard

  • Mediocre touchpad

  • Weak display, narrow color gamut

Cheap laptops are not nice. However, if they are just as powerful as more expensive laptops, the lack of subtleties can be forgiven.

But what if a cheap laptop was more powerful than these expensive laptops? How much more powerful

That describes the Acer Swift 3 for $ 650. He is one of the first to use the new Ryzen 4000 processors, which offer eight cores and eight threads. Intel eight-core laptops typically cost over $ 2,000. Will the Swift 3 introduce a new era of performance for affordable laptops?

performance

The key figure is the level of awareness of the 3rd generation AMD Ryzen 7 processors. This is what sets it apart from the standard Intel tariff. Eight cores across the board are no joke – that's twice as much as a competing 10th generation Intel chip. You'll need to switch to an Intel Core i9 laptop like the Dell XPS 15 to get eight cores that aren't used in such small laptops.

This is a small laptop. It has a 14-inch screen, weighs just 2.65 pounds, and is 0.63 inches thick – not much bigger than the new 13-inch MacBook Pro. And yet it has the same core count as a 16-inch MacBook Pro for $ 2,799.

Why is the core count so important? Four more cores should theoretically turn this otherwise modest piece of magnesium into something far stronger. More cores mean better performance on key tasks where most inexpensive laptops aren't particularly good. Applications in the Adobe Suite are a good example. They often use as many processor cores as they are fed.

I tested this with handbrake video encoding. The Acer Swift 3 completed transcoding a 4K movie trailer in just 2.5 minutes. This is 50% faster than the Intel version of the same laptop. That's what you get with four additional cores. It's even 21% faster than the XPS 13, a laptop that I praised for how hard it squeezes its quad-core processor.

That doesn't mean it can compete with other 8-core laptops. The Core i9 in the 16-inch MacBook Pro encoded the video 24% faster than the Swift 3. The Ryzen 7 4900H in the ROG Zephyrus G14 was 33% faster.

There are two reasons. The first is that the Acer Swift 3 uses the Ryzen 7 4700U, which is only a 15-watt part. Lower thermal design performance means less scope for performance. That alone explains why a slightly larger laptop with a 35-watt processor like the Asus Zephyrus G14 performs better. The Ryzen 7 4700U also does not have simultaneous multithreading. Most 8-core competitors have this, which means that their 8 processor cores act as 16 virtual cores.

I haven't tested the Ryzen 7 4800U with its 16 threads yet, but this isn't an option with the Swift 3. Instead, Acer sells a model with the Ryzen 5 4500U with six cores for $ 20 less. Although it has 8 GB of RAM to match the Ryzen 7 model, it only has 256 GB of SSD storage compared to the 512 GB in my test device. Therefore, the $ 20 upgrade is worthwhile.

Acer's built-in Radeon graphics are powerful compared to Intel's Iris graphics. I played Rocket League in 1080p with the quality settings (the middle settings of the game) at almost 60 frames per second. They are a big improvement over the built-in graphics of the past few years, but they don't turn the Swift 3 into a gaming laptop.

Display, keyboard and touchpad

A $ 650 laptop has to compromise somewhere – there's no getting around it. The biggest compromise of the Acer Swift 3 is the display.

It's a 14-inch 1080p screen that's disappointing in every way. The color gamut is limited to only 64% of the sRGB color gamut, and the colors are inaccurate. It does not completely ruin the experience of moving, nor does it hinder the completion of the work. It becomes a problem when you work with colors, be it photography, video editing, or graphic design.

What good is fast video editing if you can't trust the colors on your screen? For this reason, the Swift 3 is not ideal for photography or videography. These apps may run, but if you need to connect an external monitor for accurate colors.

The screen is also dark. The maximum brightness is only 233 nits. Even many inexpensive laptops have screens with more than 300 nits. This is a problem when using the laptop in a bright environment.

The other big compromise is appearance. The Acer Swift 3 is not ugly, but it has all the obvious problems with inexpensive laptops. The lower bezel is chunky and covers the screen with textured black plastic. The lid and keyboard deck have the wrong aluminum look and the case is covered with stickers, the removal of which is not fun. Even the backlight under the keyboard is a bit off. The white light is pretty bright, but there is no light under the space bar, which is a little strange.

Then there's the touchpad, which was my biggest hurdle when I tried to use the Swift 3 as my daily driver. It is made of plastic, does not run very smoothly and has a loud click mechanism. It's what I'm used to from a touchpad on a laptop under $ 800.

However, it is slightly larger than some other inexpensive laptops and supports Windows Precision gestures. It doesn't focus on the laptop either, which takes some getting used to.

Switching to the keyboard is one of the most enjoyable aspects of Swift 3. There's a lot to travel around without the keys feeling mushy. The buttons have a nice bottom-out action and the layout feels pleasant. The fingerprint scanner is located on the right under the arrow keys, but there is no Windows Hello IR camera.

Battery life, connections and bloatware

Battery life is another area where affordable laptops often suffer. The Acer Swift 3 is not particularly good in this area. It takes just under eight hours of easy use, but in my daily routine it took less than six hours. You can get more with more expensive laptops like the Dell XPS 13 or even the ZenBook 13 UX333.

However, the performance is good enough for a laptop of this price. In fact, the Ryzen 7 model outlasts the Intel version by 45 minutes.

Port selection is another disadvantage of cheaper laptops. There is a lot of variety here, but the ports are not the most modern. You get a single HDMI port, two USB-A ports and a single USB-C port. Unfortunately, it is still powered by a proprietary barrel connector because the USB-C connector does not support power throughput. A version of the Intel 3-based Swift 3 offers Thunderbolt 3 support, although it only costs $ 700.

Bloatware is finally available. It is in effect as if to remind you how much you have received. Removal is not difficult, but it's a bit irritating between Norton, ExpressVPN, Farm Heroes Saga, GoTrust ID, and Acer's proprietary apps.

Our opinion

Eight cores in a $ 650 laptop seem too good to be true. It is not. The Acer Swift 3 is by far the most powerful, affordable notebook ever and beats Intel laptops that are twice as expensive. The display quality is the main weakness, but I was surprised at how much value Acer could put in this affordable 14-inch laptop.

Are there alternatives?

The Acer Swift 3 is one of the first to support AMD's new Ryzen 4000 processors, but it won't be the last. From ThinkPads to gaming laptops, everything is equipped with these eight-core chips, although the Swift 3 is the cheapest model that has been announced so far.

Other laptops in this price range are the Dell Inspiron 14 5000 and the Lenovo IdeaPad 5 14-inch, but none have the performance that the Swift 3 Ryzen Edition offers. A good alternative is the Dell G3, which offers a better graphics card for games and can configure up to six cores. However, it is a much chunkier laptop and has a far worse battery life.

After all, Chromebooks offer good value in this price range. They're not as powerful and can't run the same applications, but an option like the Pixelbook Go starts at $ 649, has a far better screen, and incredible battery life.

How long it will take?

The Acer Swift 3 is a fairly robust laptop with current components. It should take four to five years before it shows its age. However, Acer's limited one-year warranty doesn't help you much in this regard.

Should you buy it

Yes. The Acer Swift 3 dominates the competition when it comes to absolute performance.

Editor's recommendations