Having reviewed the AMD version of the Asus VivoBook Pro 15-inch series of mid-range all-purpose laptops just last week, it’s now time to turn our attention onto the Intel variant of the same computer, and see how the two fare against each other and which is the better buy.
Everything is identical between the AMD – M3500 and Intel – K3500 VivoBook Pro 15s, from the construction to the inputs, internal design, and screen options, with only a slight advantage in IO for the Intel model, which offers Thunderbolt 4 support with USB-C charging and video.
That being the case, we’ll mostly go over the performance of this Intel model in this article, and refer you to our previous review for details on the design, ergonomics, screens, or typing experience.
Our test unit is the K3500PC configuration that pairs an Intel Core i7-11370H processor with 16 GB of RAM and an Nvidia RTX 3050 dGPU, but we’ll also discuss the K3500PA variants in this article, which run on Core processors with Iris Xe iGPUs, as more affordable options starting at around 800 EUR over here.
So let’s find out what this Intel version of the 2021 VivoBook pro 15 series is all about.
Specs as reviewed – Asus VivoBook Pro 15 OLED K3500
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 K3500PC and K3500PA models
Screen 15.6 inch, FHD 1920 x 1080 px, 60 Hz, OLED, glossy, non-touch, 400-nits, Samsung SDC4161 panelIPS anti-glare option also available
Processor Intel Core i7-11370H, 4C/8T
Video Intel Iris Xe, 96 EUs – on Pro 15 K3500PA
Memory 16 GB DDR4-3200 (soldered), up to 16 GB
Storage 1x M.2 PCIe x4 SSD (Intel 660p), single M.2 2280 slot
Connectivity Wireless 6 (Mediatek MT7921), Bluetooth 5.0
Ports 2x USB-A 3.1 gen1, 1x USB-A 2.0, 1x USB-C with Thunderbolt 4 – data, video and charging, HDMI 1.4b, microSD card reader, audio jack
Battery 63 Wh, 120W barrel-plug charger with quick-charging
Size 360 mm or 14.19” (w) x 235 mm or 9.26” (d) x 19.9 mm or 0.78” (h)
Weight 3.7 lbs (1.68 kg)+ .45 kg (1 lbs) for the charger+cables, EU version
Extras white backlit keyboard, HD webcam with privacy shutter, stereo bottom speakers, finger-sensor in the power button
Just to make things clear, there are two main different variants of this laptop available in stores:
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 K3500PC – higher tier configuration with Intel C0re i7-11370H processor, 16 GB of RAM, and RTX 3050 graphics;Asus VivoBook Pro 15 K3500PA – base-level models with Intel C0re i5-11300H and Core i7-11370H processors and Iris Xe graphics only.
There are also 14-inch variants of these laptops, the VivoBook Pro 14 K3400 series with Intel hardware, up to GTX 1650 graphics, and 16:10 OLED/IPS screens.
Design, inputs, and screen options This VivoBook Pro 15 series is a balanced mid-tier design that checks most of the right boxes, without excelling at any particular aspect.
Given this Intel variant is identical in every way to the AMD VivoBook Pro 15 model we already tested last week , I’ll refer you to that article for my thoughts on the design and ergonomics, on the typing experience and clickpad, and on the OLED and IPS screen options available for this series.
The only notable difference between this Intel variant and the AMD configurations is the addition of Thunderbolt 4 support here, which means that the USB-C port offers fast data transfer, video via DisplayPort, and the ability to charge the laptop with a USB-C charger. In comparison, the AMD model only gets a data-only USB-C.
The inputs are pretty good here, with one of the most comfortable and quickest typing experiences I’ve had in a long time on this Intel model, which somehow felt a little better to me than the AMD version. I can’t really tell why, as the two are identical in feedback and layout. The clickpad is only OK, though, not as good as the glass surfaces available on higher-tier ZenBooks.
Our test unit is also the same OLED panel that we tested on the AMD model here , with the exact same FHD Samsung panel with punchy 100% DCI-P3 colors.
There’s also an IPS non-glare screen option, with 400-nits of brightness and 100% sRGB color coverage, but this might only be reserved for the lower-tier K3500PA configurations. Furthermore, for some reason, the non-OLED variants only get a smaller 50 Wh battery, compared to the 63 Wh battery on the OLED configurations.
Hardware and performance Our test model is a higher-specced variation of the VivoBook Pro 15 K3500 built on an Intel Core i7-11370H 4C/8T processor with Iris Xe graphics, paired with an Nvidia RTX 3050 35-50W dGPU, 16 GB of DDR4-3200 MHz of memory, and 512 GB of middling SSD storage.
What we have here is a Media Review sample provided by Asus, identical to the retail units you can find in stores. We tested it with the software available as of early November 2021 (BIOS 301, MyAsus 3.0.29.0 app, Nvidia Studio Driver 472.69). Some aspects might change with future software tweaks.
Specs-wise, this is built on an 11th-gen Intel Tiger Lake H35 hardware platform, with the Core i7-11370H mainstream processor on our configuration. Asus implements various power profiles on this laptop, allowing the CPU to run at up to 45W of sustained power here. That’s OK for this sort of processor, but don’t forget this is only a 4C/8T CPU.
In comparison, the AMD-variants get the full-power 6C and 8C Ryzen processors, so I would have expected to see the full-power 6C/8C Intel H45 Tiger lake processors on this Intel model. Instead, Asus opted for the H35 4C CPUs, and that’s significantly crippling these configurations in CPU-heavy loads, as you’ll see in a bit.
For the GPU, this N3500PC configuration comes with an Nvidia RTX 3050 chip, with a TGP of 35W and the ability to run at up to 50W with Dynamic Boost. This is the highest-end dGPU option available for this series, and configurations with Iris Xe graphics only are also available.
The memory is soldered on the motherboard, thus non-upgradeable. Asus offers 8 or 16 GB configurations, all with DDR4-3200 memory, so make sure you get the one that fits your needs from the get-go, as there’s no way to add more afterward.
For storage, there’s a single M.2 2280 slot inside, so you can’t add a secondary drive when you’ll run out of space. Our model came with a middling 512 GB Intel drive, but the 1 TB configurations should get a faster Samsung drive.
The SSD and WiFi chip are the only upgradeable components, and accessing them is a simple task, requiring you to remove the back panel that’s held in place by a couple of Torx screws, all clearly visible. There’s some unused space around the right fan because the same design is also available in the more compact VivoBook Pro 14 K3400 series.
The laptop can be controlled through the MyAsus app, which offers access to power profiles, battery settings, screen profiles, and so on. There are three profiles to choose from: Performance, Standard, and Whisper mode, each impacting the amount of power allocated to the CPU and GPU, and the fans’ speeds.
I’ve kept the laptop mostly on Standard with daily use and demanding loads, and only pushed to Performance for benchmarks, demanding loads, and games.
On to more demanding tasks, we start by testing the CPU’s performance by running the Cinebench R15 benchmark for 15+ times in a loop, with 2-3 seconds delay between each run.
On the Performance mode, the Core i7 processor runs at 60+ W for a little bit and quickly stabilizes at ~45W of sustained power in this mode, with clock speeds of ~4.0 GHz, and temperatures of ~85 degrees Celsius. Power is the limiting factor here, as the temperatures are alright even with the fans only ramping up to 42-43 dB at head level. As it is, this Core i7-11370H implementation runs at ~95% of its maximum potential in an unlimited implementation that would allow 4.3 GHz sustained all-core Turbo.
Switching over to the Standard mode limits the fans to around 37-38 dB. In this case, the CPU quickly settles at around 25W of sustained power, with temperatures in the low-60s. The performance also drops by about 20% from the previous profile.
The performance on battery mode is erratic on this sample, though, with the CPU fluctuating between 7 to 60 W of power when unplugged. This results in low scores and inconsistent performance. All these findings are detailed in the chart and logs down below.
To put these in perspective, here’s how this Core i7 implementation fares against other 14-inch and 15-inch mid-range ultraportables in this test, both AMD or Intel. The H35 i7 is roughly 60% of the performance of the Ryzen 7 5800H processor in this same chassis, and you can also see how much of a performance difference even a low-power implementation of the 8C Intel H45 i7-11800H would have made in this chassis.
We also ran the 3DMark CPU profile test, where the Core i7-11370H in this chassis comes within 5-10% of a beefier full-size ideal implementation, and in line with most other versions of the same hardware. Once more, though, this is not match for the 6C/8C CPUs out there in the 12 and 16 Threads loads.
We then went ahead and further verified our findings with the more taxing Cinebench R23 loop test and the gruesome Prime 95.
We also ran our combined CPU+GPU stress tests on this notebook. 3DMark stress runs the same test for 20 times in a loop and looks for performance variation and degradation over time, and this unit passed it, which suggests there are no significant performance losses that might be caused by thermal throttling on this laptop.
Next, here are some benchmark results. We ran the entire suite of tests and benchmarks on the Performance profile at the screen’s native FHD resolution. Here’s what we got.
3DMark 13 – Fire Strike: 10293 (Graphics – 11647, Physics – 14320, Combined – 4489);3DMark 13 – Port Royal: 422;3DMark 13 – Time Spy: 4583 (Graphics – 4467, CPU – 5376);Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Medium: 8408;Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Extreme: 2629;Handbrake 1.3.3 (4K to 1080p encode): 30.45 average fps;PassMark10: Rating: 3379 (CPU mark: 13415, 3D Graphics Mark: 7912, Disk Mark: 19659);PCMark 10: 5884 (Essentials – 9620 , Productivity – 9027, Digital Content Creation – 6366);GeekBench 5.0.1 64-bit: Single-Core: 1527, Multi-core: 5128;CineBench R15 (best run): CPU 1097 cb, CPU Single Core 233 cb;CineBench R20 (best run): CPU 2661 cb, CPU Single Core 556 cb;CineBench R23 (best run): CPU 7054 cb, CPU Single Core 1497 cb;x265 HD Benchmark 64-bit: 52.05 s.
We also ran some Workstation related loads on this Core i7 + RTX 3050 configuration, on the Performance profile:
Blender 2.93.1 – BMW Car scene- CPU Compute: 6m 16s (Performance);Blender 2.93.1 – BMW Car scene- GPU Compute: 1m 19s (CUDA), 50s (Optix);Blender 2.93.1 – Classroom scene – CPU Compute: 17m 27s (Performance);Blender 2.93.1 – Classroom scene – GPU Compute: 5m 57s (CUDA), 2m 46s (Optix);Pugetbench – Davinci Resolve: 680 points;Pugetbench – Adobe After Effects: 560 points;Pugetbench – Adobe Photoshop: 609 points;Pugetbench – Adobe Premiere: 516 points;SPECviewerf 2020 – 3DSMax: – (Performance);SPECviewerf 2020 – Catia: 30.84 (Performance);SPECviewerf 2020 – Creo: 61.14 (Performance);SPECviewerf 2020 – Energy: 9.84 (Performance);SPECviewerf 2020 – Maya: 151.3 (Performance);SPECviewerf 2020 – Medical: 14.94 (Performance);SPECviewerf 2020 – SNX: 10.68 (Performance);SPECviewerf 2020 – SW: 97.3 (Performance);V-Ray 5 Benchmark: CPU – 4676 vsamples, GPU CUDA – 458 vpaths.
On the CPU side, the Core i7-11370H is a fast performer with single-core and light multitasking loads, but lacks in the multi-core tests. In comparison, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H scores 60-80% better in CPU-heavy activities, especially in the longer duration tests such as Blender or Handbrake.
With combined loads, though, such as PCMark, 3DMark combined, the Puget tests for photo/video editing, or the Specvieperf workloads, this Intel configuration remains competitive and only within 5-20% of the AMD configuration. It even scores higher in Puget – Premiere, where QuickSync plays a role.
Nonetheless, an 8Core i7-11800H would have allowed this Intel variant of the VivoBook Pro 15 to match the AMD model in most synthetic benchmarks, and outmatch it in the real-life workloads, as shown in our reviews of the Acer ConceptD 3 or the Dell XPS 15 , which both pair an i7-11800H processor with a similar low-power RTX 3050Ti graphics chip . This article also compares the performance of the i7-11800H with the Ryzen 7 5800H , and this one here goes deeper over the i7-11370H vs Rtzen 7 5800H debate .
Back to our test unit, the GPU runs much as expected from this sort of entry-level dedicated chip, and there’s hardly any difference in the GPU scores between the Intel and AMD variants on these VivoBook Pro 15 laptops.
Unlike the AMD model, though, this Intel configuration ran a little louder, alternating periods of lower-fan noise in the 42-43 dB to periods of higher rpms and 47-48 dB at head level. This can be rather annoying with longer loads. You can still opt for the quieter Standard profile, which lowers the fan noise in the 37-40 dB with the various loads, but takes a toll on both the CPU and the GPU performance.
Pro 15 K3500PA – Iris Xe only Those of you on a more limited budget might consider the K3500PA variants of this laptop over the PCs. Those ditch the RTX 3050 dGPU and solely rely on the Iris Xe integrated graphics.
For testing, we disabled the Nvidia chip on our sample and reran tests on the Intel chip, for a broad picture of what to expect from these PA configurations. Keep in mind these results should improve on the retail PA models, as those would benefit from better-optimized drivers and software, while the software on our test model is optimized for the Nvidia chip in demanding loads.
Nonetheless, here’s what we got on this ipothetic Core i7 11370H + 16 GB RAM + Iris Xe configuration:
3DMark 13 – Fire Strike: 3643 (Graphics – 4001, Physics – 14036, Combined – 1310);3DMark 13 – Time Spy: 1550 (Graphics – 1384, CPU – 4884);Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Medium: 2521;Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Extreme: 873;PCMark 10: 4941 (Essentials – 9628 , Productivity – 6354 , Digital Content Creation – 5353).
Pugetbench – Adobe Photoshop: 596 points;Pugetbench – Adobe After Effects: 423 points;Pugetbench – Adobe Premiere: 176 points;
I’d expect 10-15% higher scores on the retail models with optimized software, based on our review of the similarly-powered H28 Core i7 in the ZenBook 14x .
All in all, the CPU performance remains consistent on these K3500PA models, while the GPU performance is only 40% of what the laptop can do with the RTX 3050 dGPU. This impacts the performance in any kind of loads that use the GPU, from digital content creation software to games.
Core i5-11300H configurations are also available on this laptop. That’s still a 4C/8t processor only cooked a little lower than the i7, so it should perform within 10% of what we got on the i7 model. The Iris Xe iGPU within the core i5s processor is also a little slower than what’s embedded with the i7, so expect a 5-15% decrease in performance on that end as well.
Finally, you might consider choosing between the AMD-based M3500QA and Intel-based K3500PA versions of this VivoBook Pro 15. The AMD model wins in heavy CPU loads by 50-80%, but the Intel model wins in single-core, daily-multitasking, and GPU-loads by 5-20%, so these base Intel models might be worth considering over the AMD variant as budget balanced all-rounders.
Gaming performance While this VivoBook Pro 15 is not primarily a gaming laptop, let’s still look at how this Core i7 + 16 GB RAM + 3050 configuration does in games.
For starters, we ran tests on Ultra settings on FHD resolution, with the laptop set-up on the Performance profile. We also threw in the AMD version in here, as well as the VivoBook 14X and 16X models recently tested, for comparison.
Ultra settings, VivoBook Pro 15 – VivoBook Pro 15 – VivoBook Pro 16X – VivoBook Pro 14X –
Far Cry 5 62 fps (53 fps – 1% low)
61 fps (53 fps – 1% low)
64 fps (52 fps – 1% low)
68 fps (42 fps – 1% low)
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor 91 fps (65 fps – 1% low)
92 fps (65 fps – 1% low)
86 fps (61 fps – 1% low)
88 fps (63 fps – 1% low)
Red Dead Redemption 2 36 fps (37 fps – 1% low)
39 fps (30 fps – 1% low)
35 fps (28 fps – 1% low)
40 fps (29 fps – 1% low)
Shadow of Tomb Raider 49 fps (34 fps – 1% low)
52 fps (43 fps – 1% low)
48 fps (33 fps – 1% low)
56 fps (45 fps – 1% low)
Shadow of Tomb Raider 20 fps (14 fps – 1% low)
24 fps (16 fps – 1% low)
19 fps (9 fps – 1% low)
24 fps (11 fps – 1% low)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55 fps (44 fps – 1% low)
53 fps (37 fps – 1% low)
60 fps (46 fps – 1% low)
63 fps (47 fps – 1% low)
The Witcher 3 – recorded with Fraps/in-game FPS counter in campaign mode;
Far Cry 5, Middle Earth, Tomb Raider – recorded with the included Benchmark utilities;
Red Dead Redemption 2 Optimized profile based on these settings .
Much like in the GPU benchmarks, this VivoBook Pro 15 performs competitively against other similar configurations in its class. Still, if you must run games on this laptop, I’d recommend trimming down on the details for better framerates.
Here’s what we got on Medium settings at FHD resolution.
Medium settings, VivoBook Pro 15 – VivoBook Pro 15 –
Far Cry 5 71 fps (48 fps – 1% low)
73 fps (60 fps – 1% low)
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor 129 fps (90 fps – 1% low)
125 fps (88 fps – 1% low)
Red Dead Redemption 2 42 fps (32 fps – 1% low)
40 fps (33 fps – 1% low)
Shadow of Tomb Raider 69 fps (53 fps – 1% low)
68 fps (52 fps – 1% low)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 95 fps (76 fps – 1% low)
92 fps (73 fps – 1% low)
The Witcher 3 – recorded with Fraps/in-game FPS counter in campaign mode;
Far Cry 5, Middle Earth, Tomb Raider – recorded with the included Benchmark utilities;
Red Dead Redemption 2 Optimized profile based on these settings .
I also included the AMD variant of the Pro 15, and there are almost no significant differences between the two. Still, it’s worth noting the AMD model wins in most games, even if by a minimal margin. I was somewhat expecting the higher clocks and IPC of the Intel platform to push it slightly ahead in games, but that’s not the case on these devices.
On the Performance mode, the laptop once more oscillates between periods of quieter runtimes of 42-43 dB at head-level and periods when the fans ramp up to 46-48 dB. The combined CPU+GPU power is still around 70 W, and the internal temperatures are lower on this Intel model than what we recorded on the AMD variant, which ran more stably at around 42-43 dB throughout most games.
Much like on the AMD configuration, not all titles scale with Dynamic Boost 2.0; Far Cry 5 is an example that runs the CPU at 35W and the GPU at 35W, which causes the CPU to warm up above 80 degrees C. That’s because the thermal design of this laptop favors the GPU side and performs best when power is shifted from the CPU to the GPU, like in our Witcher 3 and Mordor gaming tests. In these titles, we’re looking at CPU temperatures in the mid-70s and GPU temperatures in the low to high 60s.
Lifting up the laptop from the desk can help shed off 1-3 degrees of the components, allowing for better airflow into the fans. It’s not required, and makes a more negligible difference than on the AMD model, since the default on-desk temperatures are already lower on this variation.
You should also consider running games on the Standard profile on this laptop, which slightly lowers the combined platform power to ~60W and the fans to 39-40 dB at head-level, for an up to 10% drop in performance. Given the fans’ erratic behavior on performance, this Standard mode is by far the better-balanced option on this Intel configuration.
That aside, you can game on this VivoBook Pro on battery power, as it still supplies ~30W of power to the GPU and 35W combined in this case. Witcher 3 runs at about 60 avg fps on Performance.
One final aspect to touch on is the gaming performance on Intel Xe graphics, for the VivoBook Pro 15 K3500PA configurations.
Those perform well within the platform’s capabilities, as showcased in these logs down below, allowing the Iris chip to run close to its maximum design frequency, with excellent temperatures and quiet fan noise.
Still, don’t expect to run more than older titles at FHD resolution with low settings on this sort of configurations, even if the overall performance of these Intel-only models is 10-20% superior to what you’ll get with the AMD configurations with Vega graphics. This article offers a better picture of the kind of gaming experience you can expect from a mid-power Intel Core i7 implementation with this sort of Iris Xe graphics.
Noise, Heat, Connectivity, speakers, and others Asus went with a dual-fan dual-heatpipe thermal module here, more complex than on regular VivoBooks of the past, and identical to the system tested in the VivoBook Pro Pro 16X, with longer heatpipes and a larger fan/radiator on the GPU side, which help keep the temperatures in-check under load, as explained in the previous section.
Fresh air comes in from the bottom with this design, through the open intakes over the fans and heatpipes, and the hot air is pushed out through vents hidden under the hinge. The plastic hinge is designed to split the hot air, sending most of it down and to the back and away from the user, and only some into the screen, as you can see from our thermal readings down below.
The fans fluctuate between 42-48 dB on the Performance profile on this VivoBook Pro 15 model, unlike on the AMD model, where they ran at a stable 42-43 dB. For what is worth, other reviews of the AMD configuration also mention up to 48 dB fan noise on Performance.
The Standard profile is quieter, at 39-40 dB, with a slight toll on performance, and definitely worth considering for the much quieter experience on this Intel variant.
The fans rest idle with light use on battery and barely kick on with daily multitasking while plugged in. I also haven’t noticed any coil whine or electronic noises on our sample, but make sure to test for them on yours.
As for the external temperatures, no complaints at all, nor with daily use, with the mostly passive cooling, or with demanding loads and games. The chassis stays way under 40 degrees Celsius, with small hotspots around the radiator and over the heatpipes, on the underside. Some of the hot air is pushed into the screen, but most of it is soaked up by the plastic hinge and bezel, so the panel only reaches temperatures in the mid-30s, which will not lead to any unpleasant surprises down the road.
*Daily Use – Standard mode –streaming Netflix in EDGE for 30 minutes, fans at 0-35 dB *Gaming – Performance mode – playing Far Cry 5 for 30 minutes, fans at 42-48 dB
Gaming on the Intel-only VivoBook Pro 15 K3500PA versions of this laptop results in slightly lower chassis temperatures and quieter fans at 42-44 dB.
In all fairness, though, the retail PA models might get a slightly more basic thermal design than the PC tested here, so take these readings with a grain of salt.
For connectivity, there’s the latest-gen WiFi 6 and Bluetooth 5 through a Mediatek module on this laptop, and not the Intel chips available on the Pro 14X/16X variants. Nevertheless, it still performed well with our setup.
Audio is handled by a set of stereo speakers that fire through grills placed on the laptop’s bottom, on the sides. They can be easily muffled when using the laptop on the lap or on a blanket, so be careful about it.
Asus implemented some prominent speakers on this series, and they sure are punchy at up to 80 dB at head-level, but just like on the AMD model, the quality is still only average and still lacks in bass. Overall, the sound is perhaps a little improved over other VivoBook laptops, but I was expecting much better judging by the size of those audio chambers. Maybe Asus can further tweak them in software somehow?
I’ll also mention that there’s an HD camera placed at the top of the screen, with a physical shutter, and it seems a little better quality than the norm, at least in adequate lighting. Microphones flank the webcam.
Battery life There’s a 63 Wh battery inside all the OLED versions of the VivoBook Pro 15, competitively sized for a laptop in this class. However, the non-OLED variants only come with a smaller 50 Wh battery.
Here’s what we got on our 63Wh model, with the screen’s brightness set at around 120 nits (~60 brightness).
15 W (~4+ h of use) – text editing in Google Drive, Standard + Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;7 W (~9 h of use) – 1080p fullscreen video on Youtube in Edge, Standard + Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;6 W (10+ h of use) – Netflix fullscreen in Edge, Standard + Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;20 W (~3-4 h of use) – browsing in Edge, Standard + Better Performance Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;55 W (1+ h of use) – Gaming – Witcher 3, Performance + Best Performance Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON.
This Intel model is not nearly as efficient with multitasking and text editing as the AMD variant, and it won’t last as long on a charge with light video streaming either, although it can still go for 8+ hours in that case.
The K3500PC configurations of this VivoBook Pro 15 ship with a mid-sized 120W charger, which plugs in via a standard barrel plug. USB-C charging is also possible here, unlike on the AMD models.
The Intel-only K3500PA variants ship with more compact 65W or 90W chargers.
Price and availability- Asus VivoBook Pro 15 K3500 The VivoBook Pro 15 K3500 is listed in stores in some regions at the time of this article.
Over here, the tested VivoBook Pro 15 OLED K3500PC configuration with the Core i7-11370H + 16 GB of RAM + RTX 3050 + OLED screen + 1 TB of storage is available for a little under 1100 EUR MSRP. The same goes for around ~1100 EUR in Germany, but is not yet available in the UK or North America.
Follow this link for updated prices and configurations in your region .
Other configurations are also available in some markets, with the K3500PA models with Intel Iris Xe graphics starting at around 800 EUR over here, for the Core i5-11300H + 8 GB RAM + 512 GB SSD versions. However, because the memory is soldered and non-upgradeable, I’d aim for something with 16 GB of RAM as much as possible, which is available on both the i5 or the i7 models.
There are also non-OLED versions of these Intel VivoBook Pro 15 laptops, but be careful that they only come with a smaller 50Wh battery.
Final thoughts- Asus VivoBook Pro 15 K3500 Hardware aside, this VivoBook Pro 15 is still one of the better mid-range all-around laptops we’ve reviewed recently.
It’s well built and good-looking, offers excellent inputs and a fine selection of ports, a big battery, and comes with a punchy and vivid OLED panel with 100 DCI-P3 color coverage on most configurations. There are also some matte-screen IPS models to choose from, but only for the lesser specs.
The thing is, the hardware platform majorly impacts the overall value of this product. Opting for an Intel H35 platform, Asus significantly limited the multi-threaded performance of this configuration compared to the AMD Ryzen models with 6C and 8C processors . Add in the fact that this Intel variant is not as efficient on battery and sells for 50-100 EUR more than the AMD configurations, and there’s little reason to get these K3500 Intel models over the M3500 AMD variants.
Sure, you’re getting slightly better single-core CPU performance with the Intel models, but the only real advantage of this Intel series is the Thunderbolt 4 connectivity that allows DP and charging over USB-C, which the AMD models lack.
At the same time, the lower-tier Intel configurations with Iris Xe graphics also have a GPU-performance advantage over the AMD variants with Vega only graphics, and while still a little more expensive, the Core i5-11300H configuration of the K3500PA can be an arguably good daily-driver alternative to the Ryzen 5 5600H versions of the M3500QA, as long as you’re not planning on running and CPU intensive tasks on your device. However, once you step up to the i7 vs Ryzen 7 processors and especially to the RTX graphics that negate the iGPUs in any graphics intensive task, the AMD-based VivoBook Pros are the clear recommendations over the Intel counterparts.
As far as other options in the compact thin-and-light 15-inch laptop space go, the MSI Prestige 15 comes to mind as a close rival, with a more aggressive price but poorer cooling and screen options. The HP Envy 15 is another series worth looking into, and perhaps the base-tier configuration of the Dell XPS 15 , if you’re willing to spend a little more for a premium chassis.
This wraps up our review of the Asus Vivobook Pro 15 K3500 here, and I’d love to hear your thoughts, questions, and feedback down below.
Review by: Andrei Girbea
Andrei Girbea is a Writer and Editor-in-Chief here at Ultrabookreview.com . I write about mobile technology, laptops and computers in general. I've been doing it for more than 15 years now. I'm a techie with a Bachelor's in Computer Engineering. I mostly write reviews and thorough guides here on the site, with some occasional columns and first-impression articles.
Nacho
November 30, 2021 at 12:27 am
Good evening.
I've been looking to Asus Vivobooks's computers and I'm a little confused. I know that I want 1TB SSD, OLED screen, so I've seen all the Vivobook PRO OLED (16, 15 and 14 sizes). My main concern is about the CPU: I chose the vivobook becasuse they usually add an NVIDIA GPU, but I don't know which CPU I should buy (the INTEL models or the AMD models)because, as you say in your review, a different CPU can bring different results in working with the NVIDIA graphics. I want the laptop to work from home (mostly word, exel, chrome, access… I don't require huge programs like Adobe premiere or anything else) and play some videogames such us Outer wilds
Andrei Girbea
November 30, 2021 at 8:48 am
You should be fine with either Intel or AMD. I prefer the AMD route because the CPUs are faster in multi-threaded applications (which you won't need from what you're saying), more efficient on battery, and the price is usually lower. Plus, the AMD models are available with 3050Ti chips, while the Intel versions only go up to a 3050. Up to you and what's available in your region.
Arashi
January 8, 2022 at 2:13 pm
What about the HDMI? In the table it says 1.4 WTF.
If that's true it's a huge problem, you won't be able to use modern external monitors, any cheap laptop came at least with HDMI 2.0
Andrei Girbea
January 8, 2022 at 2:17 pm
the specs are correct. You can connect a modern screen via USB-C/ Thunderbolt 4, so not really an issue.
Arashi
January 10, 2022 at 11:42 am
Yes, but then you need to buy an external adapter and you lost the Thunderbold port.
Even if you buy a Dock with multiple ports (expensive af…) the display adapter takes at least half of the bandwidth so you won't be able to use it 100%.
I mean, if this laptop was around 400-500€ that would be no problem…but it's almost a thousand…I don't even ask for a HDMI 2.1, just the old 2.0 that every cheap PC has (even a 100€ mini PC has it…)
Andrei Girbea
January 10, 2022 at 11:46 am
Yeah, support for HDMI 2.0 would have been better. I guess you need to drive a 4K monitor at 60 Hz, and 1.4b won't suffice?
As far as the TB dock goes, DP has its dedicated bandwidth allocation, so I don't understand your argument.
Arashi
January 10, 2022 at 12:07 pm
Thanks for the reply!
In my case it's a 2K 144hz monitor, my old laptop (gtx 1050 and HDMI 2.0) moves it almost fine, I will still move to Displayport so that's why I'm searching for Thunderbolt port so in my personal case it could not be a problem but still, if you are a normal user who got as you said a 4k monitor you won't be able to use it.
Sorry, but I didn't get your point , what do you mean with "DP has its dedicated bandwidth allocation", If I understand correctly, the Thunderbolt port has 40Gbps, if I'm using a dock with a display port it will take I guess at least 20Gbps for it and the rest will be used for another ports. In this case if the HDMI would be 2.0 I could use the full 40Gbps for another devices.
Still, It's strange that you use the port fully but it's a limitation
Andrei Girbea
January 10, 2022 at 12:13 pm
That's not how TB works. Yes, a TB3 port offers 40 Gbps of total bandwidth, but, in short – because in practice this can vary, 8 Gb are already reserved for DP and only up to 32 for everything else. You'll find more about it online.
Arashi
January 10, 2022 at 12:28 pm
I didn't know that!
I checked and yes…
well…I will have to balance pros and cons but being the market as it it's I think I will keep it (just bought it before seeing the review, already on his way).
Thanks for the help Andrei!
Arashi
January 11, 2022 at 7:01 pm
Okay, so I finally have the laptop, this are the things I dislike:
-Windows doesn't recognize the SSD, you have to search for drivers on your own (nothing on ASUS website), also, in the Windows , you have to use external mousse to install it.
-The HDMI, as I said before it's 1.4 version, so you will be limited to 1080p only in good quality
-It doesn't have Ethernet – Come on! I din't even realize until I tried to use it, it's a huge problem in a working laptop (and no, Thunderbolt hub it's not an option if you have to waste around 200€ for a displayport and Ethernet)
-The video output it's the Intel Graphics always (HDMI and Thunderbolt), so you can use the Nvidia only for brute performance but you have to work with all Intel configurations
María
January 22, 2022 at 6:58 pm
Hi, do you think this laptop would be good for using design programs? Like the Adobe Suite for example. I am not that tech savvy, but I am an art student and I am looking for a good laptop for these kind of apps. Thank you :)
Andrei Girbea
January 25, 2022 at 10:32 am
should be OK for light and medium weight tasks
Ali
June 17, 2022 at 12:26 am
Currently have a Ryzen 9 version of the M3500QC and was considering swapping for the K3500PC simply for the Thunderbolt ports. Having a Thunderbolt port easily integrates to my setup but a bit worried how much it will effect the performance and battery life.
Do you think that the Thunderbolt ports are worth the sacrifice?
sofia
July 15, 2022 at 7:40 pm
Hello, could you help me to choose one of them? I am gonna use some graphic design programs and excel files. I need something that will not get slower in 2 or 3 years. Also I hate fan sounds and heat. Can't decide among those. Help me please.
LENOVO YOGA SLİM 7 Pro RYZEN 7 5800h 14'
LENOVO İDEAPAD 5 PRO RYZEN 7 5800U 14'
ASUS N7400 i5-11300H 14'
Andrei Girbea
July 18, 2022 at 10:41 am
They're all OK. If your design programs are Adobe related, I'd rather go with an Intel configuration. Is there are also an nvidia dGPU on that N7400 configuration that you're looking at?
One other thing to keep in mind is the amount of include RAM. For your needs, you should go with a 16 GB configuration. This matter even more than he choice between AMD/Intel platfroms
Sofia
July 18, 2022 at 6:07 pm
Thanks for your reply. They all have 16gb RAM. Asus has NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050. But I could not be sure after reading your comments/cons about AMD Asus..