Notebookcheck Logo

华硕 VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH (N4200, HD) 笔记本电脑简短评测

不值一提。 该华硕变形本拥有Apollo Lake处理器，提供了大量的存储空间。电池续航时间勉强算是平均水平。价格接近500欧元（约560美元），该设备不算是最实惠的型号之一。
Convertible / 2-in-1 Touchscreen Windows
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T (VivoBook Flip 12 Series)
Processor
Intel Pentium N4200 4 x 1.1 - 2.5 GHz, Apollo Lake
Graphics adapter
Intel HD Graphics 505, Core: 750 MHz, 21.20.16.4678
Memory
4 GB 
, DDR3-1866
Display
11.60 inch 16:9, 1366 x 768 pixel 135 PPI, 电容式, 10 点触控, AU Optronics B116XAN04.3, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035, 1024 GB 
, 900 GB free
Soundcard
Realtek ALC256 @ Intel Apollo Lake SoC - High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, Audio Connections: combined audio, Card Reader: microSD, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Sensors: acceleration sensor, TPM 2.0
Networking
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9377 Wireless Network Adapter (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 4.1
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 21.35 x 293.4 x 198
Battery
42 Wh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Speakers: 立体声, Keyboard: chiclet, Keyboard Light: no, McAfee LiveSafe (trial version), Ms Office 365 (trial version), Team Viewer 11, WPS Office for Asus, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
1.3 kg, Power Supply: 132 g
Price
499 Euro
Links
Asus homepage
Asus notebook section
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Size Comparison

❌
306 mm 208 mm 22.5 mm 1.5 kg303.8 mm 207.9 mm 20.75 mm 1.4 kg293.4 mm 198 mm 21.35 mm 1.3 kg284 mm 202 mm 17.5 mm 1.2 kg278 mm 199 mm 18.3 mm 1.1 kg297 mm 210 mm 1 mm 5.7 g
Left side: USB 3.1 Gen 1 (Type A), audio combo, fingerprint reader, volume rocker, power button
Left side: USB 3.1 Gen 1 (Type A), audio combo, fingerprint reader, volume rocker, power button
Right side: card reader (microSD), 2x USB 3.1 Gen 1 (1x Type C, 1x Type A), HDMI, power
Right side: card reader (microSD), 2x USB 3.1 Gen 1 (1x Type C, 1x Type A), HDMI, power
Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
548 MBit/s +62%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9377 Wireless Network Adapter
338 MBit/s
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Realtek RTL8723BS
46 MBit/s -86%
iperf3 receive AX12
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
657 MBit/s +91%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9377 Wireless Network Adapter
344 MBit/s
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Realtek RTL8723BS
52 MBit/s -85%
260
cd/m²		253
cd/m²		266
cd/m²
234
cd/m²		253
cd/m²		277
cd/m²
179
cd/m²		221
cd/m²		266
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
AU Optronics B116XAN04.3 tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 277 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 245.4 cd/m² Minimum: 16 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 65 %
Center on Battery: 253 cd/m²
Contrast: 1488:1 (Black: 0.17 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.17 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
66% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
42% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
45.73% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
66.3% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
44.23% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.43
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
IPS, 1366x768, 11.60		Dell Latitude 3189
IPS, 1366x768, 11.60		ODYS Vario Pro 12
IPS, 1366x768, 11.60		Medion Akoya E2215T
IPS, 1920x1080, 11.60		HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
IPS, 1366x768, 11.60
Display
2%
2%
9%
2%
Display P3 Coverage
44.23
44.96
2%
45.16
2%
48.12
9%
45.21
2%
sRGB Coverage
66.3
67.3
2%
67.5
2%
71.7
8%
67.8
2%
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage
45.73
46.49
2%
46.71
2%
49.78
9%
46.73
2%
Response Times
-13%
-49%
9%
30%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
39 ?(18, 21)
40 ?(18.8, 21.2)
-3%
60 ?(31, 29)
-54%
31 ?(13, 18)
21%
18.8 ?(6.8, 12)
52%
Response Time Black / White *
25 ?(13, 12)
30.4 ?(16.4, 14)
-22%
36 ?(22, 14)
-44%
26 ?(6, 20)
-4%
23.2 ?(10, 13.2)
7%
PWM Frequency
50 ?(20)
Screen
9%
-41%
-15%
-6%
Brightness middle
253
291
15%
282
11%
338
34%
194
-23%
Brightness
245
284
16%
250
2%
309
26%
186
-24%
Brightness Distribution
65
92
42%
74
14%
76
17%
86
32%
Black Level *
0.17
0.16
6%
0.37
-118%
0.39
-129%
0.22
-29%
Contrast
1488
1819
22%
762
-49%
867
-42%
882
-41%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
3.17
3.4
-7%
5.63
-78%
3.94
-24%
3.06
3%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
8.13
9.6
-18%
11.28
-39%
9.96
-23%
8.81
-8%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
2
1.8
10%
5.04
-152%
2.54
-27%
1.42
29%
Gamma
2.43 91%
2.14 103%
2.19 100%
2.38 92%
2.34 94%
CCT
6850 95%
6544 99%
7254 90%
6902 94%
6432 101%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
42
42.8
2%
43
2%
46
10%
42.98
2%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
66
67
2%
67
2%
71
8%
67.56
2%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-1% / 5%
-29% / -33%
1% / -7%
9% / 1%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ
Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
   ↔    Response Time Black to White
25 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 13 ms rise
↘ 12 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 53 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
   ↔    Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
39 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 18 ms rise
↘ 21 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 53 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
1680
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
4673
Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
3331
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
53 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
167 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
17.82 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.8 %
Help
Cinebench R15 | Cinebench R10 | Geekbench 3 | Geekbench 4.0 | Geekbench 4.4 | JetStream 1.1
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
53 Points
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
51 Points -4%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
50 Points -6%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel Celeron N3050
35 Points -34%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
175 Points +5%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
174 Points +4%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
167 Points
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel Celeron N3050
65 Points -61%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
5440 Points +16%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
5346 Points +14%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4673 Points
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
3076 Points -34%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
2897 Points -38%
Rendering Single 32Bit
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1680 Points
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1638 Points -2%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
1633 Points -3%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
938 Points -44%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
921 Points -45%
Geekbench 3
32 Bit Multi-Core Score
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
4736 Points +1%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4682 Points
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
2289 Points -51%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
2130 Points -55%
32 Bit Single-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1430 Points
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1400 Points -2%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
760 Points -47%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
726 Points -49%
Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
4558 Points +1%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4491 Points
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1609 Points
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1541 Points -4%
Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4729 Points
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
4719 Points 0%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1616 Points
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1571 Points -3%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
91.5 Points
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
87.5 Points -4%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
84.6 Points -8%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
44.1 Points -52%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel Celeron N3050
43.31 Points -53%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
42.55 Points -53%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
2094 points
Help
PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
Dell Latitude 3189
HD Graphics 505, Pentium N4200, Liteonit CV3-8D128
2273 Points +9%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
HD Graphics 505, Pentium N4200, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
2094 Points
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
HD Graphics (Braswell), N3050, Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 HTS545050A7E680
1545 Points -26%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8350, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1437 Points -31%
Medion Akoya E2215T
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8350, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1282 Points -39%
HD Tune
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
hddimg
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
Transfer Rate Minimum: 26.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 135 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 100.6 MB/s
Access Time: 19.9 ms
Burst Rate: 78.7 MB/s
CPU Usage: 5.9 %
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035		Dell Latitude 3189
Liteonit CV3-8D128		ODYS Vario Pro 12
32 GB eMMC Flash		Medion Akoya E2215T
64 GB eMMC Flash		HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 HTS545050A7E680
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
7181%
1851%
1279%
68%
Read Seq
53.9
408.4
658%
168.3
212%
169.6
215%
106
97%
Write Seq
66.4
214.3
223%
43.13
-35%
39.77
-40%
106.1
60%
Read 512
22.62
243.7
977%
155
585%
155.3
587%
33.53
48%
Write 512
67.3
170.6
153%
33.71
-50%
27.45
-59%
39.03
-42%
Read 4k
0.378
8.864
2245%
15.91
4109%
13.09
3363%
0.407
8%
Write 4k
0.263
49.14
18584%
11.64
4326%
7.915
2910%
1.026
290%
Read 4k QD32
0.998
132.2
13146%
32.2
3126%
15.11
1414%
0.898
-10%
Write 4k QD32
0.518
111.7
21464%
13.65
2535%
10.05
1840%
1.003
94%
3DMark 11 Performance
672 points
Help
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel HD Graphics 505, Intel Pentium N4200
804 Points +31%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel HD Graphics 505, Intel Pentium N4200
616 Points
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel HD Graphics (Braswell), Intel Celeron N3050
377 Points -39%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8350
297 Points -52%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8350
297 Points -52%
low med. high ultra
World of Warcraft (2005) 62.3 25.2
BioShock Infinite (2013) 25.4 14.4 11.5
Risen 3: Titan Lords (2014) 14.2 9.3
GTA V (2015) 9.5 4.3
Far Cry Primal (2016) 3
Civilization VI (2016) 9.7
Titanfall 2 (2016) 2.3
Prey (2017) 5.4
Rocket League (2017) 26.6
Dirt 4 (2017) 14.7

Noise Level

Idle
31.7 / 31.7 / 31.7 dB(A)
HDD
32.3 dB(A)
Load
31.7 / 31.7 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
  
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 30.8 dB(A)
Max. Load
 30.9 °C42 °C45.2 °C 
 30.1 °C39.4 °C44.6 °C 
 26.7 °C30.6 °C33.8 °C 
Maximum: 45.2 °C
Average: 35.9 °C
42 °C50.4 °C28.4 °C
39.8 °C39.4 °C27.8 °C
33.9 °C33 °C26.8 °C
Maximum: 50.4 °C
Average: 35.7 °C
Power Supply (max.)  39.2 °C | Room Temperature 23 °C | FIRT 550-Pocket
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35.9 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 30.2 °C / 86 F for the devices in the class Convertible.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.2 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 19.6 to 55.7 °C for the class Convertible.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 50.4 °C / 123 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.4 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 30.2 °C / 86 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (33.8 °C / 92.8 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.1 °C / 82.6 F (-5.7 °C / -10.2 F).
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2033.334.733.32536.534.536.53140.943.140.94033.132.133.15031.738.931.76332.733.432.7802927.92910029.926.229.912531.527.831.516035.724.735.720036.723.536.725050.122.750.131556.121.556.140062.220.762.250065.319.765.363065.519.665.580065.518.565.5100066.118.166.112506218.2621600571857200059.617.959.6250060.91860.9315059.218.159.2400060.418.460.4500058.518.458.5630061.518.661.580006319631000059.419.159.41250062.51962.51600065.919.565.9SPL7430.974N34.61.534.6median 60.4median 19median 60.4Delta6.51.86.535.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.72.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049TApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (66 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 21%, worst was 57%
Compared to all devices tested
» 46% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.46 / 0.47 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.7 / 7.8 / 8.7 Watt
Load midlight 21 / 19 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing (Edge 40)
6h 05min
Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing
Dell Latitude 3189
Pentium N4200, HD Graphics 505, 42 Wh
607 min +66%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Z8350, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), 38 Wh
474 min +30%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Z8350, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail),  Wh
453 min +24%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Pentium N4200, HD Graphics 505, 42 Wh
365 min
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
N3050, HD Graphics (Braswell), 32 Wh
286 min -22%

Pros

+ IPS显示屏
+ 大量的存储空间
+ USB Type-C

Cons

- 平庸的电池续航
- 昂贵
The Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T, provided by notebooksbilliger.de.
The Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T, provided by notebooksbilliger.de.

华硕发布了一台11.6英寸规格的变形本，VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH。内置的 Apollo Lake 处理器为办公和上网功能提供了足够的性能支持。鉴于，解码器集成于显卡中，该机可以播放大部分的视频格式，可以作为一个较好的家用电视视频播放设备。 

显示屏留下了一个复杂的印象。华硕提供的这个高对比度屏幕，拥有这稳定的视角，但是亮度缺稍显不足。

The VivoBook Flip 12 主要用于家庭使用。

1-TB 硬盘的存在，使得电脑不缺存储空间。然而，一个小容量的固态硬盘可能会是更好的选择。特别是当电脑的处理器较弱时，固态硬盘和机械硬盘的差别在日常使用中就变明显了。用户需要自行安装固态硬盘。可惜，这更换过程显得并不容易。华硕也不提供配备固态硬盘的该机型。

电池续航时间勉强算是中等水平：在我们的无线连接测试中，该设备的续航时间是6小时5分钟。如果该机只是在家中的客厅使用，那么电池容量是够用的。但如果是在户外使用，用户必须随身携带电源适配器。而搭载相同硬件水平和电池容量的Dell Latitude 3189，却多了4小时的续航时间。

最后，需要提下售价。该机价格是500欧（约560美元），这价格对于一个简单的变形本来说太贵了。此外，该机的看起来没有比同等价位的其他笔记本好。

 注：本文是基于完整评测的缩减版本，阅读完整的英文评测，请点击这里。  

Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T - 06/16/2017 v6(old)
Sascha Mölck

Chassis
74 / 98 → 75%
Keyboard
69%
Pointing Device
88%
Connectivity
42 / 80 → 52%
Weight
71 / 35-78 → 85%
Battery
88%
Display
82%
Games Performance
48 / 68 → 71%
Application Performance
46 / 87 → 52%
Temperature
88%
Noise
92%
Audio
50 / 91 → 55%
Camera
40 / 85 → 47%
Average
68%
79%
Convertible - Weighted Average

More articles related to this device

Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T (VivoBook Flip 12 Series)

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebookcheck中文版（NBC中国） > 评测 > 华硕 VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH (N4200, HD) 笔记本电脑简短评测
Sascha Mölck, 2017-06-28 (Update: 2017-06-28)