Acer 40 Out of 5 Stars 1 Reviews Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-31rd
Acer Swift five SF514 (i5-8250U, UHD 620) Laptop Review
Lightweight performance mimosa. At just 930 grams (2.05 lbs) the touchscreen-equipped laptop seems to be the perfect business companion. We accept a closer look at much more than just Swift'southward processor and RAM. What are the notebook's inherent compromises, and what else did Acer take to cede along the way?
Several models of Acer's Swift 5 have been upgraded with Intel's latest Kaby Lake Refresh processors in the grade of this year. As we speak, Acer is selling a total of four different 8th generation Swift v SKUs. Today, we take a closer expect at the Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY - an ultralight fourteen-inch laptop equipped with Intel'southward Core i5-8250U, 8 GB of RAM, and a 256 GB NVMe SSD. One of its highlights is undoubtedly the FHD touchscreen. Final year, nosotros had its Kaby Lake-equipped predecessor in review (Core i5-7200U). With about identical hardware, it was a whopping 400 yard (0.9 lb) heavier. Let us see what else has inverse.
It was surprisingly hard for u.s. to find worthy competitors for today's review unit as lightweight (aka less than 1 kg/~2.2 lb) xiv-inch notebooks with touchscreen are almost impossible to discover. Appropriately, we have had to widen our scope to include the Toshiba Tecra X40-D (equipped with a touchscreen), the Asus ZenBook 3 Deluxe UX490UA (like weight and hardware), the more expensive Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 (see Asus), and its smaller blood brother the Acer Swift 3 SF314.
Display
14.00 inch 16:9, 1920 ten 1080 pixel 157 PPI, yes, AU Optronics AUO203D, IPS, glossy: yeah
Mainboard
Intel Kaby Lake-U iHDCP two.two Premium PCH
Storage
Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7, 256 GB
, 190 GB gratis
Weight
930 one thousand ( = 32.eight oz / two.05 pounds), Power Supply: 153 g ( = five.4 oz / 0.34 pounds)
Note: The manufacturer may use components from unlike suppliers including brandish panels, drives or retentiveness sticks with similar specifications.
At commencement glance the Swift 5 - not to exist confused with the Acer Spin 5 - looks like whatever other business organisation notebook: it is completely black relieve for the golden hinge and an Acer logo on the brandish lid. The example seems to be of high quality every bit the inner frame has been largely coated past a sparse layer of Magnesium-Lithium and feels very sturdy. We found plastic but around the inner brandish frame. The very wide aureate swivel displaying the Swift logo is an eye-catcher. Apart from that, the case pattern, including the functional and pragmatic keyboard layout is rather apparently and simple. Unlike on many other Swift notebooks, the fingerprint reader is located on the right-hand side beneath the keyboard.
Unfortunately, that first impression of sturdiness chop-chop gave way to thwarting in one case we started warping and bending the instance. Even the base of operations creaked noticeably and the display snapped so violently that for a second we feared for its honey life. A second test led to less fearful creaking and snapping, and it is possible that our review unit had to "snap shut" first. Still, we were able to most crevice the lid open with nothing merely our fingernails effectually the corners of the display; definitely a negative when it comes to build quality.
On a more positive notation, the notebook features a 180-degree hinge machinery. The hinge was very stiff and nosotros found no evidence of teetering while using the device. There is no maintenance hatch at the bottom, and the battery is not user-replaceable.
In terms of weight, the new Swift is the unchallenged leader of the pack. Even its closest competitors made by Asus and Lenovo were around 200 m (7 oz) heavier.
Size-wise it is always and then slightly larger (2 mm/~0.08 in) and thicker (1 mm/~0.04 in) than its predecessor. Considering that Asus has managed to squeeze a 14-inch display into a thirteen-inch case it came equally no surprise that the ZenBook was even smaller and slimmer. In render, the Swift 3 was much bigger and heavier despite its every bit sized 14-inch brandish. It is amazing how much weight Acer has managed to shave off the Swift 5, especially considering that is not even the smallest device in its class.
❌
In terms of connectivity, the Swift 5 seems to follow the usual subnotebook mantra of keeping it simple. Information technology features a full of 3 USB ports, one of which is USB-C, an HDMI port, and a headphone jack - that is it. An RJ45 Ethernet port is nowhere to exist establish.
More chiefly, we mourn the lack of a bill of fare reader. In society to transfer photos off one'southward retentivity card onto the notebook one has to use a dongle. The predecessor still featured a carte du jour reader, but it has been eliminated from this year's blueprint.
With that limited selection of ports, at least placement should be a cakewalk given the availability of space on both sides, right? Incorrect over again - nearly all ports have been placed on the right-paw side. The spacing betwixt the USB ports and the HDMI port is too narrow, particularly considering that HDMI cables tend to be rather stiff more often than not and might therefore severely impede mouse move for right-handers.
Camera
According to Acer, the Swift v is equipped with a then-called "HD webcam", which usually means that information technology is capable of recording video in 720p and produces horrible photos. Unfortunately, this time our expectations were met spot on. Despite the business concern pretense high-quality Skype, Viber, and other video chats do not seem to exist on the manufacturers' agendas - pretty much every smartphone selfie-shooter offers a higher quality. Photos are blurry, noisy, and lack details. And don't even get me started on colors.
Wi-Fi
The Swift's Wi-Fi performance was slightly above average for a concern notebook, but beneath average in straight comparison with its competitors. Receiving data streams, it was 29% slower than the Toshiba and between five and 12% slower than the residuum of the field. When transmitting data, the Asus and the Lenovo were around 30% faster. Still, Wi-Fi performance was acceptable overall, and nosotros have non experienced any problems in everyday utilise. Since our review unit of measurement lacked an Ethernet port and an LTE modem, the just manner to connect to the outside world was through Wi-Fi.
Security features include TPM and a fingerprint reader with support for Windows Hello.
Accessories
The only items in Swift's box were an international warranty booklet and a charger. Additional accessories are obviously bachelor; still, as none of these are model-specific nosotros will not go into detail.
The Swift lacks a dedicated maintenance hatch. Thus, the bottom cover needs to exist removed in order to admission the internals. Fortunately, this tin be accomplished fairly only by undoing a full of 11 T5 Torx screws. One time the screws are removed, the cover can be popped open past starting at the forepart of the device to slowly pry it open bit by bit. Underneath the cover are the fans, the SSD, the Wi-Fi modem, and the battery. RAM cannot be upgraded as the modules are soldered onto the motherboard - 1 of the compromises Acer has had to brand for the sake of thinness.
Keyboard
Despite the primal'due south rather brusk travel, typing on the chiclet-style keyboard was pleasantly easy and fast thank you to its very precise accentuation point. That said, there are more comfortable keyboards to blazon on, and the layout was non without its unique set up of weaknesses.
For example, some of the keys, including the topmost row of office keys and unfortunately also the cursor keys were very small. The left and right arrow keys had to share their space with the Folio Up and Folio Downwards keys that double as Domicile and Cease keys via FN modifier. In improver, on German keyboard layouts the left shift key had to share its infinite with the < > key - an upshot that should not affect US users given that this particular central is missing on Us keyboards.
The power button is located at the very meridian right in the part keys row correct side by side to the delete fundamental, and we establish ourselves putting the Swift 5 to sleep accidentally far too often. The backlight is now besides no longer adjustable - unlike on the predecessor, which featured a 2-phase adaptable backlight, information technology can only be turned either on or off.
The buttons for increasing and decreasing display brightness were also very confusing, to say the least. A bright and seemingly fully lit sun depicts brightness decrease while a dark and empty dominicus is used to depict brightness increase. And to make matters worse the manual says the exact opposite.
The keyboard did not sound very premium, and its clatter was not specially quiet to boot. By and large it was okay, though.
Touchpad
The smooth touchpad was inconspicuous and very responsive. Its size was acceptable and the fingerprint reader has finally been removed from its surface. The invisible buttons were somewhat stiff, just on the plus side accidental button clicks were an exception. The sound emitted was not very loud, and not very premium either.
Touchscreen
In addition to its depression weight, the touchscreen is most certainly 1 of Swift'southward other highlights. It was easy to use, although one should be conscientious as the entire device has a tendency to tilt backwards due to the base'due south low weight. A possible solution would be to hold the base with your other mitt. Once you get used to a touchscreen information technology is hard to alive without i as it seems more natural than a touchpad. That said you have to be meticulous nearly keeping the screen articulate of dirt and dust, as information technology increases friction significantly and impedes operations such every bit for case drag & drop operations.
The cogitating display panel is made by AU Optronics.
It did very well in most categories, although its effulgence was far too low. At just 231 nits, the Swift v featured the dimmest brandish in our test group, and was practically unusable outdoors due to its highly reflective nature. Even the cheaper Swift 3 was 12% brighter. The poor display brightness came as a surprise mainly because the predecessor had one of the brightest panels we accept always had in our lab, and it was l% brighter than today's review unit. At least the panel's brightness distribution of 86% was decent and browbeaten merely by the Lenovo's 91%.
The display was not entirely devoid of screen bleeding. However it was fairly unobtrusive and limited to the edges. Swift's display was simply too dark to cause whatsoever screen haemorrhage issues, and whatever fiddling we saw could only be noticed in particularly night scenes.
| 218 cd/m² | 236 cd/k² | 223 cd/one thousand² | ||
| 224 cd/m² | 254 cd/m² | 220 cd/m² | ||
| 237 cd/thou² | 239 cd/g² | 231 cd/m² | ||
Distribution of brightness
AU Optronics AUO203D
Ten-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 254 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 231.3 cd/m² Minimum: 15 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 254 cd/m²
Contrast: 1016:1 (Black: 0.25 cd/yard²)
ΔE Color iii.85 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.4, calibrated: iii.66
ΔE Greyscale 4.1 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
97% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.three 3D)
63% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.half-dozen.3 3D)
71% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll two.two.0 3D)
97.1% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
69.seven% Brandish P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.43
| Acer Swift five SF514-52T-59HY AU Optronics AUO203D, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV AU Optronics B140HAN3.ii, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer Swift 3 (i5-7200U, Hd 620) Chi Mei CMN14C9, , 1920x1080, fourteen.00 | Toshiba Tecra X40-D Toshiba TOS508F, , 1920x1080, fourteen.00 | Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA AU Optronics AUO383D / B140HAN03.8, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE B140HAN03_1, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -8% | -39% | -40% | -fourteen% | -11% | |
| Brandish P3 Coverage | 69.vii | 62.8 -ten% | 40.96 -41% | 40.55 -42% | 58.7 -16% | 61.6 -12% |
| sRGB Coverage | 97.1 | 91.3 -6% | 61.iv -37% | 61 -37% | 86.9 -11% | 87.half dozen -x% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 71 | 64.3 -9% | 42.34 -40% | 41.89 -41% | 59.nine -16% | 62.6 -12% |
| Response Times | -xxx% | -19% | -10% | 7% | -31% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 37 ? | 51 ? -38% | 43 ? -sixteen% | 38 ? -3% | 24 ? 35% | 48 ? -thirty% |
| Response Time Blackness / White * | 23 ? | 28 ? -22% | 28 ? -22% | 26.viii ? -17% | 28 ? -22% | 30.iv ? -32% |
| PWM Frequency | 200 ? | 20410 ? | ||||
| Screen | -10% | -xx% | -33% | half dozen% | xi% | |
| Brightness middle | 254 | 393 55% | 281 xi% | 283.9 12% | 337 33% | 278 9% |
| Effulgence | 231 | 338 46% | 259 12% | 261 thirteen% | 295 28% | 271 17% |
| Effulgence Distribution | 86 | 79 -8% | 81 -6% | 85 -ane% | 81 -vi% | 91 6% |
| Black Level * | 0.25 | 0.29 -16% | 0.45 -fourscore% | 0.25 -0% | 0.21 16% | 0.xvi 36% |
| Dissimilarity | 1016 | 1355 33% | 624 -39% | 1136 12% | 1605 58% | 1738 71% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | three.85 | 6.17 -60% | 4.nineteen -9% | half-dozen.4 -66% | 4.89 -27% | iv.five -17% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | vii.05 | 11.21 -59% | 10.64 -51% | xviii.seven -165% | 8.43 -xx% | 8.four -19% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 3.66 | |||||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | iv.1 | 6.viii -66% | two.55 38% | 6.3 -54% | four.28 -4% | 3.ii 22% |
| Gamma | 2.43 91% | 2.27 97% | 2.24 98% | two.39 92% | ii.25 98% | 2.02 109% |
| CCT | 7369 88% | 6873 95% | 6555 99% | 6511 100% | 7352 88% | 7042 92% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 63 | 51 -19% | 39 -38% | 38 -twoscore% | 56 -xi% | 57 -10% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 97 | 91 -6% | 61 -37% | 60 -38% | 87 -10% | 87.5 -10% |
| Total Boilerplate (Programme / Settings) | -sixteen% / -12% | -26% / -24% | -28% / -31% | -0% / 2% | -10% / one% |
* ... smaller is meliorate
Positive aspects of the panel include its blackness level, grayscale, and colour accuracy. In all these, the new Swift 5 performed much meliorate than its predecessor. Contrast was a bit worse, just at 1.016:1 still acceptable. Subjectively, the brandish looked very nice. Photos were well-baked and rich in dissimilarity, thank you to the panel's low black level.
Colour space coverage turned out to be pretty good - 97% sRGB and 63% AdobeRGB are more than than but respectable and worthy of start place in our test grouping.
All things considered the display could have been very skilful if only it were brighter.
Outdoors, on the other hand, the panel was practically unusable due to two big no-nos: a reflective surface and the low brightness. Combine these two and you go an image that is virtually invisible outdoors. The display's low black level and loftier contrast ratio were unable to salvage it from utter humiliation - to put it mildly, outdoor usability is certainly not one of Swift's strong suites. This is peculiarly disturbing considering the device's low weight and high portability.
Display Response Times
ℹ
Display response times bear witness how fast the screen is able to change from i color to the next. Slow response times tin lead to afterimages and tin can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attending to fast response times.
| ↔ Response Fourth dimension Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 23 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 10 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too tiresome for competitive gamers. In comparing, all tested devices range from 0.eight (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 37 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (23.five ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to fourscore% Grayness | ||
| 37 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17 ms ascension |  |
| ↘ xx ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will exist unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.692 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 39 % of all devices are amend. This means that the measured response fourth dimension is like to the boilerplate of all tested devices (37.ane ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply bicycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method chosen Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally exist undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive optics may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering birthday.
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
| In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not utilize PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 22039 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Viewing angles were as wide equally expected of an IPS panel. Accordingly, the display angle is not that important when the laptop is used on one's lap. Due to the device's low weight, 1 has to make sure it does not fall off i'south lap. The photo below depicts the display at diverse viewing angles of up to 45 degrees.
Our review unit of measurement was equipped with an Intel Core i5-8250U processor running at 1.half-dozen-3.four GHz, with an integrated Intel UHD Graphics 620 GPU, and 8 GB of DDR3 RAM. Nearly devices in our examination grouping apply this older and slower type of RAM, although the Swift five runs its retentivity at the lowest clock speeds of them all. Only the Toshiba Portege was equipped with DDR4 RAM already. In addition, Swift's RAM is soldered onto the motherboard and thus not upgradeable. At least information technology runs in dual-aqueduct mode. Storage wise, the Swift 5 features a 256 GB large SSD. Storage and CPU options include a 512 GB SSD and Intel's Core i7-8550U.
Given its specifications, this subnotebook is best used for role tasks and web browsing. Information technology should accept plenty of oomph for these kinds of workloads; however we would advise against using information technology for more demanding tasks such as video editing or gaming.
Using LatencyMon, we found no evidence of latencies whatever.
Intel's Cadre i5-8250U is a specially efficient Kaby Lake Refresh quad-core processor with a base clock speed of 1.half dozen GHz and a turbo boost of upwardly to three.4 GHz (cooling permitting). The latter is going to be of particular interest to us due to the notebook'southward slim example, and the question is how well the Swift v manages heat dissipation?
Running our thirty minute Cinebench R15 loop we find first hints of how the Swift 5 balances rut, performance, and throttling. Performance fluctuated wildly depending on the fourth dimension passed since we first launched the test and the CPU's temperature. During the first run, the Swift 5 yielded a decent score, but never managed to utilise the CPU's turbo potential to its fullest. Inside mere seconds CPU temperature climbed to 70 °C (~158 °F), and the CPU clocked down to 2.4 GHz. Clock speeds slowly reduced further and further, and dropped to 2 GHz in the tertiary iteration, 1.8-1.9 GHz later v iterations, and eventually the CPU'southward base of operations clock speed starting with the seventh iteration. Appropriately, Cinebench scores kept dropping and dropping. The notebook attempted to keep its core temperature at around 70 °C (~158 °F), which was harder and harder with each run of Cinebench. Eventually, Cinebench scores settled at just 275 points.
To brand matters worse Swift'south performance dropped past some other six to 20% on battery. We ran three tests dorsum to dorsum: (a) Cinebench on mains, (b) Cinebench on battery, and (c) Cinebench on mains again. The departure between (a) and (b) was xx%, and the difference between (b) and (c) was vi%. These results show how hard information technology was to obtain reliable and reproducible results with the Swift v.
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
The notebook's performance varied depending on how long the notebook had been running and how high the CPU temperatures were. Information technology was thus very hard to obtain results that were reliable, reproducible, and comparable with its competitors given the constantly fluctuating Cinebench scores. According to our test guidelines we take the initial offset run simply it should be clear that for virtually (sub) notebooks this result is a mere theoretical maximum score and not a real-world average upshot. Nether these circumstances the Swift 5 trounce its competitors thanks to its newer CPU, at least in the multi-core tests. The single-core tests are dominated by the Toshiba notebook, and most of its competitors were faster than the Swift every bit well.
Cadre temperatures increased fairly fast due to the small and slim design. Accordingly, thermal throttling occurred very quickly. In multi-core scenarios the CPU was incapable of utilizing its total turbo heave potential, and sometimes it fifty-fifty clocked below its base speed of 1.6 GHz. Fifty-fifty after a cold kick our review unit remained below the Core i5-8250U average, and the Swift 3 turned out to exist faster and more consequent to boot. Apparently, that is the cost y'all have to pay for the ultralight subnotebook design at hand.
| Cinebench R10 | |
| Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit | |
| Boilerplate of class Subnotebook (8073 - 12384, n=5, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel Core i5-8250U (5163 - 8153, northward=thirteen) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit | |
| Boilerplate of class Subnotebook (20535 - 46311, northward=v, last two years) | |
| Average Intel Cadre i5-8250U (11245 - 28932, northward=13) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Cinebench R11.5 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (0.88 - 2.7, northward=fifteen, last 2 years) | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Boilerplate Intel Core i5-8250U (0.91 - 1.79, due north=35) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (2.68 - 18.ix, n=15, concluding 2 years) | |
| Boilerplate Intel Cadre i5-8250U (3.fifteen - 7.76, northward=35) | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Acer Swift v SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Cinebench R15 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (70.1 - 239, n=108, concluding 2 years) | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Average Intel Core i5-8250U (81 - 147, n=97) | |
| Acer Swift five SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV | |
| Acer Swift iii (i5-7200U, Hd 620) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Asus Zenbook three Deluxe UX490UA | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (162 - 2041, n=116, final ii years) | |
| Average Intel Core i5-8250U (320 - 730, north=101) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA | |
| Acer Swift 3 (i5-7200U, Hd 620) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Acer Swift five SF514-51-59AV | |
Cinebench R10 Shading 64Bit
6572 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
11245 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Unmarried CPUs 64Bit
5163 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Unmarried 64Bit
0.91 Points
Cinebench R11.v CPU Multi 64Bit
three.15 Points
Cinebench R11.five OpenGL 64Bit
23.54 fps
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
41.89 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.8 %
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
494 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
132 Points
Help
Our review unit of measurement did meliorate to a certain degree in the arrangement performance category at least. In PCMark 8'due south Work Score it made 2nd identify bested only by the Toshiba with its faster CPU (Core i7-7600U) and incredibly fast SSD.
In Dwelling house Score Swift five'due south performance was again then poor information technology ended upwardly in the concluding place. Information technology was around iii% slower than its predecessor and 10-fifteen% slower than the rest of the field.
| PCMark eight | |
| Domicile Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (1083 - 5361, n=44, concluding 2 years) | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Acer Swift iii (i5-7200U, Hard disk drive 620) | |
| Asus Zenbook iii Palatial UX490UA | |
| Average Intel Core i5-8250U, Intel UHD Graphics 620 (2986 - 4458, n=69) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV | |
| Acer Swift v SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Asus Zenbook iii Deluxe UX490UA | |
| Average Intel Cadre i5-8250U, Intel UHD Graphics 620 (2699 - 5106, n=58) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Boilerplate of course Subnotebook (2227 - 5628, n=42, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3264 points | |
| PCMark 8 Piece of work Score Accelerated v2 | 4700 points | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 2619 points | |
| Help | ||
Compared to its predecessor, the SSD has been upgraded. In our ranking, Intel'due south 256 GB SSD tin exist found in 91st place thanks to its 4-lane PCIe NVMe interface. In our test grouping, the only SSD even faster was Toshiba's Samsung PM961. Otherwise Swift's storage device was capable of keeping up with its competitors, but scored 15% below the reference model in CrystalDiskMark iii for some reason.
Sequential Read: 1113 MB/s
Sequential Write: 597 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 203.3 MB/south
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1563 MB/s
CDM five/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 578 MB/southward
CDM 5/half-dozen Read 4K Q32T1: 289.5 MB/southward
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 161.6 MB/s
CDM five Read Seq: 1149 MB/s
CDM v Write Seq: 585 MB/southward
CDM v/vi Read 4K: 33.88 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 98 MB/s
Sequential Read: 1382MB/south
Sequential Write: 576MB/s
Access Time Read: 0.075ms
Admission Time Write: 0.041ms
Our review unit lacked a dedicated GPU. Instead, it relied on the very efficient even so not particularly powerful integrated Intel UHD Graphics 620. It is not suited for demanding tasks, particularly considering Swift 5's throttling problems.
Appropriately, the Swift five ended up in the last place in our 3DMark benchmarks as well despite having a similar GPU equally its competitors. The difference of upward to 50% was shocking and basically the benchmark equivalent of unconditional surrender. The examination was started coming from regular office use.
| 3DMark xi - 1280x720 Functioning GPU | |
| Boilerplate of class Subnotebook (410 - 16128, n=100, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (1144 - 2006, northward=241) | |
| Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV | |
| Acer Swift iii (i5-7200U, HD 620) | |
| Acer Swift five SF514-52T-59HY | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (2795 - 53539, due north=81, terminal 2 years) | |
| Boilerplate Intel UHD Graphics 620 (6205 - 11437, due north=222) | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA | |
| Acer Swift v SF514-51-59AV | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| 1920x1080 Burn down Strike Graphics | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (315 - 11055, north=105, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (557 - 1444, n=210) | |
| Toshiba Tecra X40-D | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| 3DMark xi Operation | 1580 points | |
| 3DMark Deject Gate Standard Score | 6668 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 903 points | |
| Assist | ||
Due to their integrated graphics hardware, business organization and subnotebooks are rarely e'er suitable for gaming. This is particularly true for the Swift 5 due to its massive CPU throttling problems under load.
"Rocket League", a less enervating championship, ran smoothly in FHD and low details, and so did other less demanding titles such as "FIFA" (no issues upward to 2017) including the latest release in reduced details and resolution. "Fortnite" and "Overwatch" both ran smoothly in minimum details. A listing of potentially playable games can be found on our UHD Graphics 620 page.
Comparative data is only bachelor for "The Witcher 3" and "Rising of the Tomb Raider", and it became instantly clear that the Swift v lagged behind its competitors over again. "The Witcher 3" ran around sixteen% slower on the Swift 5 than it did on the Lenovo, and nigh 50% slower than on the Asus. By and large, Swift 5's UHD Graphics 620 remained between 21 - 50% below average. It was every bit fast as the Lenovo in "Rise of the Tomb Raider" simply twenty% slower than the Asus and the older Swift v. Despite these differences the touch on existent-life is fairly limited - none of the candidates in our examination field was really practical or even suitable for gaming. The differences were however large enough to account for the differentiation between playable and unplayable. Accordingly, the competition clearly dominated in this category.
| The Witcher three | |
| 1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Boilerplate of class Subnotebook (12.ane - 205, due north=82, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (8.8 - 20.7, n=62) | |
| Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA | |
| Acer Swift five SF514-51-59AV | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Acer Swift v SF514-52T-59HY | |
| 1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Boilerplate of class Subnotebook (8.2 - 112, n=72, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (eight - 14.3, northward=27) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Rocket League | |
| 1280x720 Operation | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (23 - 124.four, n=iii, last two years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (twenty.1 - 95, n=26) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| 1920x1080 Performance | |
| Average of grade Subnotebook (73.3 - 79.8, n=2, final 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (17.1 - 78.iv, n=thirteen) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| 1920x1080 Quality AA:Medium FX | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (50.9 - 56.1, north=2, last 2 years) | |
| Boilerplate Intel UHD Graphics 620 (xiii.ane - 43, n=24) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| 1920x1080 Loftier Quality AA:High FX | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (32.5 - 36, north=2, terminal 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (xiii.2 - 24.7, north=21) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Rising of the Tomb Raider | |
| 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| Average of course Subnotebook (19.five - 76.8, due north=five, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (x.iv - 110.7, northward=82) | |
| Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| 1366x768 Medium Preset AF:2x | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (15.3 - 47.3, northward=5, final 2 years) | |
| Boilerplate Intel UHD Graphics 620 (6.five - 49.3, n=62) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV | |
| Acer Swift five SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
All of the contenders in our test grouping behaved more or less the same in terms of noise emissions. Merely the Toshiba notebook was much louder under load but quieter otherwise. Accordingly, the Swift five was inconspicuous generally. The fans turned completely off regularly, particularly after a cold kicking. They will not, notwithstanding, turn back off after a prolonged period of sustained load regardless of how long the succeeding low-load office phase is going to last. Sensitive users might be able to notice and consequently exist bellyaching by the high-pitched dissonance emitted by the fans in completely silent environments.
Noise Level
| Idle | 30.3 / thirty.3 / 31.two dB(A) | |
| Load | 33.1 / 34.4 dB(A) | |
 | ||
| 30 dB twoscore dB(A) 50 dB(A) | ||
| min: | ||
, med: 
, max: 
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A | Acer Swift 3 (i5-7200U, Hard disk 620) Hd Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Toshiba Tecra X40-D HD Graphics 620, i7-7600U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Asus Zenbook three Deluxe UX490UA HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE Hd Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | 1% | one% | 3% | -1% | -1% | |
| off / surroundings * | 30.3 | xxx.5 -1% | thirty.6 -1% | 28 8% | thirty.2 -0% | 29.6 two% |
| Idle Minimum * | xxx.3 | 30.v -one% | thirty.6 -1% | 28 8% | thirty.2 -0% | 29.6 two% |
| Idle Boilerplate * | xxx.three | xxx.5 -1% | 30.6 -ane% | 28 viii% | thirty.2 -0% | 29.6 2% |
| Idle Maximum * | 31.2 | 30.5 2% | 31.one -0% | 28.ii 10% | 31.2 -0% | 32.ii -three% |
| Load Average * | 33.1 | 32.25 three% | 34 -3% | 33.2 -0% | 35.seven -eight% | 34.2 -iii% |
| Load Maximum * | 34.4 | 32.6 5% | 31.45 9% | 39.ix -16% | 34.2 one% | 36.ane -five% |
* ... smaller is better
Surface temperatures of our Swift 5 review unit of measurement were average. Some of its competitors, similar the Toshiba and the Lenovo, showed similar temperatures while others remained cooler, particularly the Asus (fifteen%) and Swift 5's own predecessor (x%). Under farthermost load, the Swift 5 reached a maximum of 45 °C (~113 °F) at the bottom, merely it remained much libation in depression-load office workloads. The hot spots were located towards the rear around the fan vent well-nigh the hinge while the palm rests and large parts of the keyboard remained comfortably cool.
The notebook's drastic throttling and cooling behavior reared its ugly head over again during our Prime95 and FurMark stress test. After a full hour CPU clock speeds had dropped to a mere 800 MHz with CPU cadre temperatures of around 65 °C (~149 °F). The gap to Intel'due south specified critical threshold of 95 °C (~203 °F) was quite large, and appropriately Acer could have improved overall performance significantly if only the Swift 5 would not be throttling as aggressively as it did. Proceed in mind that the CPU is rated at a base clock speed of 1.6 GHz. On the other mitt temperatures would rise dramatically had the speed not been reduced by half. It would accept had a detrimental upshot on the already adequately high surface temperature maximum of 45 °C (~113 °F).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 42.9 °C = 109 F Boilerplate: 33.9 °C = 93 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 44.9 °C = 113 F Average: 34.9 °C = 95 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Power Supply (max.) 47.1 °C = 117 F | Room Temperature 28.3 °C = 83 F | FIRT 550-Pocket
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 28.4 °C = 83 F Boilerplate: 27 °C = 81 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 28.5 °C = 83 F Boilerplate: 27.3 °C = 81 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ability Supply (max.) 33.9 °C = 93 F | Room Temperature 23.viii °C = 75 F | FIRT 550-Pocket
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.9 °C / 93 F, compared to the boilerplate of 30.6 °C / 87 F for the devices in the class Subnotebook.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.9 °C / 109 F, compared to the boilerplate of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.4 to 58.four °C for the class Subnotebook.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.9 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 39.four °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the boilerplate temperature for the upper side is 27 °C / 81 F, compared to the device boilerplate of 30.6 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 28.7 °C / 83.7 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest surface area of like devices was 28.iii °C / 82.nine F (-0.4 °C / -0.8 F).
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-51-59AV HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A | Acer Swift iii (i5-7200U, Hard disk drive 620) Hd Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Toshiba Tecra X40-D HD Graphics 620, i7-7600U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Asus Zenbook three Deluxe UX490UA HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE Hd Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | nine% | 12% | 1% | 15% | -4% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 42.nine | 39.4 8% | 39.6 8% | 43 -0% | 33.3 22% | 48.v -13% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 44.9 | 40 11% | 40.4 ten% | 42 half-dozen% | 33.ii 26% | 46.1 -3% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 28.4 | 25.8 9% | 23.7 17% | 29.2 -iii% | 27 5% | 28.five -0% |
| Idle Bottom * | 28.v | 26.5 vii% | 24.7 13% | 27.eight ii% | 27.2 five% | 27.8 2% |
* ... smaller is better
Speakers tend to benefit immensely from spatial volume, and thus large cases; something the Swift five cannot offer. Appropriately, the speakers sound pretty poor: too repose, non enough bass, overemphasized mids. In fact, the speakers were so bad that at loftier levels of volume even the Windows audio effects were noticeably distorted. Music performance was even worse, and external speakers or headphones are an accented must if one wants to mind to music. Speakers can be continued via the 3.5-mm sound combo jack on the side.
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Acer Swift five SF514-52T-59HY audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (67.vii dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average seven.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (six.eight% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs ii - 16 kHz
(+) | counterbalanced highs - only 2.vii% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - sixteen.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.four% difference to median)
Compared to aforementioned class
» 33% of all tested devices in this grade were meliorate, 7% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of vii%, boilerplate was 19%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» twenty% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 76% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) one.i GHz sound analysis
(+) | speakers tin can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on boilerplate eleven.three% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is boilerplate (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 - sixteen 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 (9.3% deviation to median)
Compared to same form
» 2% of all tested devices in this form were better, i% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 19%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» two% of all tested devices were amend, ane% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was xx%, worst was 65%
Power consumption is where the Swift v truly shined and outperformed the entire competition regardless of test scenario. Thanks to the idle fans, the average idle power consumption was measured at just 4.8 W while about competitors required at least 30% more energy. Maximum power consumption under load was just 23 W, which was not particularly surprising given the device's heavy throttling. Our review unit'due south predecessor was particularly bad and consumed up to 50% more energy simply also offered a higher performance in return. Nevertheless, the included 45 W charger is more than amply dimensioned to go on charging the Swift 5 even under extreme load.
| Acer Swift five SF514-52T-59HY i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer Swift five SF514-51-59AV i5-7200U, Hard disk drive Graphics 620, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A, IPS, 1920x1080, xiv.00 | Acer Swift 3 (i5-7200U, HD 620) i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7, IPS, 1920x1080, fourteen.00 | Toshiba Tecra X40-D i7-7600U, Hard disk drive Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Asus Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490UA i5-7200U, Hard disk Graphics 620, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN, IPS, 1920x1080, fourteen.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE i5-7200U, Hard disk drive Graphics 620, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK, IPS, 1920x1080, fourteen.00 | Boilerplate Intel UHD Graphics 620 | Average of class Subnotebook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -48% | -35% | -38% | -24% | -53% | -58% | -75% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 2.8 | 3.6 -29% | 3.7 -32% | five.2 -86% | 3.three -18% | 3.eight -36% | 3.79 ? -35% | 4.fifteen ? -48% |
| Idle Average * | 4.8 | 7 -46% | 6.one -27% | half dozen.9 -44% | half dozen.1 -27% | seven.1 -48% | six.96 ? -45% | 7.38 ? -54% |
| Idle Maximum * | 6.3 | 9.3 -48% | eight.eight -xl% | 7 -xi% | 10.1 -60% | 8.3 -32% | 8.78 ? -39% | 9.25 ? -47% |
| Load Average * | 21 | 37 -76% | 30.6 -46% | 24.6 -17% | 24.half-dozen -17% | 34.2 -63% | 35.1 ? -67% | 39.1 ? -86% |
| Load Maximum * | 23 | 32.vi -42% | 29.6 -29% | xxx.1 -31% | 22 4% | 43.3 -88% | 47.4 ? -106% | 55.vii ? -142% |
* ... smaller is better
In terms of battery life, the old Swift 5 model did surprisingly well without ever getting shut to the elevation contenders in its grade. But under load did the device turn off later 1.5 hours. Accordingly, our review unit of measurement'south 2-jail cell 36 Wh bombardment does not bode specially well because the predecessor's larger 3-cell 54 Wh battery. Yet another cede in the name of weight.
Maximum battery life is adamant via a rather unrealistic idle scenario using BatteryEater. We set the brandish to its lowest brightness and actuate airplane fashion and power saving mode while the tool simulates very low-cal load. In this particular exam, the Swift 5 lasted for almost 16 hours and scored a well-deserved average rating.
Minimum battery life, on the other hand, is determined at maximum brightness with the energy program set to "High Performance" and all advice modules enabled while running BatteryEater's Classic test. To our surprise, the new Swift lasted 150 minutes compared to the predecessor'due south 100 minutes.
Most relevant is our real-globe Wi-Fi examination, though. We gear up the free energy programme to "Balanced" and normalize brightness to 150 nits while running a script that simulates typical spider web browsing load by loading and rendering various spider web sites, YouTube videos, etc. In this test, the Swift v lasted for five:13 hours until information technology powered off. As expected, this was by far the shortest runtime in our test group. It was fifty-fifty more than than 2 hours less than the average of all subnotebooks ever reviewed past the states. All things considered, the Swift v still concluded upwardly with an average battery life rating thank you to its very long idle runtime.
In the final battery test, our video playback test, we play an H.264-encoded video in a loop with power saving way enabled, brightness normalized to 150 nits, and airplane mode enabled over again. The Swift 5 lasted for 7:46 hours in this test - the Lenovo and its own predecessor lasted around 20% longer.
Charging from near empty to total takes a bit less than 2 hours.
Battery Runtime
| Idle (without WLAN, min effulgence) | 16h 02min | |
| WiFi Websurfing | 5h 13min | |
| Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p | 7h 46min | |
| Load (maximum brightness) | 2h 30min |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 36 Wh | Acer Swift v SF514-51-59AV i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 53.9 Wh | Acer Swift 3 (i5-7200U, Hd 620) i5-7200U, Hd Graphics 620, 48 Wh | Toshiba Tecra X40-D i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, 48 Wh | Asus Zenbook 3 Palatial UX490UA i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 46 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Average of class Subnotebook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bombardment Runtime | 17% | 109% | -4% | 30% | 16% | 42% | |
| Reader / Idle | 962 | 1014 5% | 876 -ix% | 1032 7% | 819 -15% | 1400 ? 46% | |
| H.264 | 466 | 555 nineteen% | 573 23% | 703 ? 51% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 313 | 549 75% | 653 109% | 357 14% | 562 eighty% | 547 75% | 576 ? 84% |
| Load | 150 | 100 -33% | 126 -xvi% | 153 2% | 122 -nineteen% | 127.6 ? -xv% | |
| WiFi | 653 |
Pros
+ decent yet slightly too dark touchscreen
+ but 930 grams
+ 180-degree hinge
+ decent color-space coverage
+ depression power consumption
Cons
- extreme CPU throttling, slower than its own predecessor
- creaks, noticeable gaps on the lid
- express port selection, poor placement
- keyboard layout far from ideal
- display also dark and as well reflective
- small battery, poor battery life
Evaluating and ranking the Acer Swift 5 has been a real challenge, to say the least. Its very low weight of less than 1 kg (~2.2 lb) is certainly a big plus. However, due to the dark and highly reflective brandish portability suffered considerably.
Positive aspects include the more than decent display (salvage for the same brightness), the touchscreen, the fast SSD, and its low power consumption.
The other side of the coin turned out to be pretty disruptive though. Nearly notably, the massive throttling that the device exhibited reduced performance considerably (but too offered an explanation for the low power consumption). The Swift 5 handled short bursts only fine, just pretty much surrendered to long-lasting sustained load - a compromise necessitated past the highly portable and lightweight design. Even the Swift 5's own predecessor turned out to be faster. Another sacrifice in the name of depression weight was the battery capacity, and consequently the battery life. And last but not least, the build quality was far from perfect.
The Acer Swift 5 is a big compromise in the name of low weight. Information technology is geared towards a very special group of users that adopt a particularly lightweight subnotebook to a high-functioning laptop.
Despite its very specific target audience, we consider the extreme throttling issues in dire need of comeback. Our wish list for a possible successor also includes a brighter display of comparable quality.
Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY - 2018-06-18 06/eighteen/2018 v6(old)
Christian Hintze
Subnotebook - Weighted Average
Pricecompare
A C64 marked my entry into the world of PCs. I spent my pupil internship in the repair department of a computer shop and at the finish of the day I was immune to gather my own 486 PC from "workshop remnants". Every bit a result of this, I later studied computer science at the Humboldt University in Berlin, with psychology besides existence added to my studies. After my start job equally a research banana at the university, I went to London for a year and worked for Sega in computer game translation quality assurance. This included working on games such as Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed and Company of Heroes. I accept been writing for Notebookcheck since 2017.
Born in the Usa and raised in Germany I became acquainted with both languages from an early on age and turned this into my profession later in life. Computers have always played an important role in my life, and my love for all things digital is a huge part of my daily routine. Virtual Reality has captured my imagination and interest in particular, and I cannot await to see what the (near) future will bring.
Christian Hintze, 2018-06-twenty (Update: 2019-03- 9)
morelandsoutimseling.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-5-SF514-i5-8250U-UHD-620-Laptop-Review.309526.0.html
0 Response to "Acer 40 Out of 5 Stars 1 Reviews Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-31rd"
Post a Comment