Asus Zenbook S 13 OLED Review: Ryzen 6800U Goes Thin

A long-lasting, lovely productivity machine that gets a bit toasty.

Asus Zenbook S13 OLED
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The Asus Zenbook S 13 OLED shows off the power of AMD's latest processors and looks great doing it, but it runs warm and you may need a dongle because it's light on ports.

Pros

  • +

    Slim, clean design

  • +

    Long battery life

  • +

    Strong productivity performance

Cons

  • -

    Runs warm

  • -

    Short on ports

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

If processors tick and tock towards faster performance and increased efficiency, laptops follow a similar pattern, getting smaller and thinner (It's definitely been true on our list of the best ultrabooks). So it's not a huge surprise that the Asus Zenbook S 13 OLED (expected to start at $1,099, tested at $1,499) is a trim, attractive notebook, and among the first to carry the latest from AMD: the Ryzen 7 6800U.

The new Ryzen chip proves potent, and the Asus laptop is more than thin: it also has a high-resolution OLED display and surprisingly long battery life, which is a rare combination.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Andrew E. Freedman
Senior Editor

Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. He also keeps up with the latest news. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Follow him on Threads @FreedmanAE and BlueSky @andrewfreedman.net. You can send him tips on Signal: andrewfreedman.01

  • -Fran-
    Too bad you didn't do gaming, but it reads like a very decent competitor in the segment.

    My GF is in the market for these laptops, so she'll love to have an AMD option as she hates the HP Envy with the nVidia graphics, haha.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    -Fran- said:
    Too bad you didn't do gaming, but it reads like a very decent competitor in the segment.

    My GF is in the market for these laptops, so she'll love to have an AMD option as she hates the HP Envy with the nVidia graphics, haha.

    Regards.
    Andrew was a bit under the gun to get the review up, but we've added some graphics tests after the fact. Unfortunately, we don't have comparable performance data from other laptops we've reviewed, as that hasn't been something deemed "important" on non-gaming laptops. We're planning to test the graphics performance of some of the other budget "non-gaming" laptops going forward, to build out our suite of results. Right now, it looks like the Radeon 680M is about 80% faster than Intel's Iris Xe 96 EU graphics solution, which is used in both Alder Lake and the older Tiger Lake. It's also a big step down from the sort of performance you'd get from even a GTX 1650 laptop solution.
    Reply
  • deesider
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Andrew was a bit under the gun to get the review up, but we've added some graphics tests after the fact. Unfortunately, we don't have comparable performance data from other laptops we've reviewed, as that hasn't been something deemed "important" on non-gaming laptops. We're planning to test the graphics performance of some of the other budget "non-gaming" laptops going forward, to build out our suite of results. Right now, it looks like the Radeon 680M is about 80% faster than Intel's Iris Xe 96 EU graphics solution, which is used in both Alder Lake and the older Tiger Lake. It's also a big step down from the sort of performance you'd get from even a GTX 1650 laptop solution.
    For a relatively high resolution screen like 2880 x 1800 would you consider doing a half-resolution test (1440 X 900), since I assume it would be less blurry than a re-scaled 1600 X 900? Or does it make little difference?
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    deesider said:
    For a relatively high resolution screen like 2880 x 1800 would you consider doing a half-resolution test (1440 X 900), since I assume it would be less blurry than a re-scaled 1600 X 900? Or does it make little difference?
    The problem with tailoring testing to a specific laptop screen is that it would make it more difficult to compare results. This particular laptop should probably run games at 1440x900, as you suggest, but many laptops have 1080p displays and so that makes more sense as an apples-to-apples testing target. I'd say that if you drop the number of pixels rendered in games by 37.5%, you should expect performance to improve by 15–20%. We could try to test that, but it's more time spent and thus less likely to get done.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    The problem with tailoring testing to a specific laptop screen is that it would make it more difficult to compare results. This particular laptop should probably run games at 1440x900, as you suggest, but many laptops have 1080p displays and so that makes more sense as an apples-to-apples testing target. I'd say that if you drop the number of pixels rendered in games by 37.5%, you should expect performance to improve by 15–20%. We could try to test that, but it's more time spent and thus less likely to get done.
    I would say that maybe testing RSR (via mods or driver) and FSR in it would make sense then?

    You can still standardize the testing at a fixed resolution, I guess. Or just make it a Pixel count per frame time to normalize the results. It should be somewhat fair? Like: this laptop takes x-ms to deliver y-MP on screen and that becomes a normalized measure you can use to compare. Not perfect, but it does give perspective in conjunction with the standardized test. You could give the normalization theory a go with regular setups and validate variances so they're taken into account. Hey this doesn't sound too dumb now that I think about it, heh.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • akithtsuki
    USB4 ?
    "
    Ports3x USB 4 Type-C, 3.5 mm headphone jack"
    I saw onlt USB3.2 gen 2 from asus website
    "
    I/O Ports
    3x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C support display / power delivery
    1x 3.5mm Combo Audio Jack
    "
    https://www.asus.com/Laptops/For-Home/Zenbook/Zenbook-S-13-OLED-UM5302-AMD-Ryzen-6000-series/techspec/
    Reply
  • watzupken
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Andrew was a bit under the gun to get the review up, but we've added some graphics tests after the fact. Unfortunately, we don't have comparable performance data from other laptops we've reviewed, as that hasn't been something deemed "important" on non-gaming laptops. We're planning to test the graphics performance of some of the other budget "non-gaming" laptops going forward, to build out our suite of results. Right now, it looks like the Radeon 680M is about 80% faster than Intel's Iris Xe 96 EU graphics solution, which is used in both Alder Lake and the older Tiger Lake. It's also a big step down from the sort of performance you'd get from even a GTX 1650 laptop solution.
    It is not as fast as a GTX 1650, that is to be expected. After all, this is supposed to be an APU that sustains a 15 to 28W TDP. It is really to see how much of a difference people can expect in 3D applications by moving from the aged Vega to RDNA2. The mobile GTX 1650 will require something like a H series processor to catch up due to higher power limit and also better cooling solution deployed.

    As for gaming resolution, there is no miracle here. The TDP simply won’t allow the iGPU and CPU to run at high clockspeed under sustained load. In fact, it is more likely the APU run into thermal limit given the slim laptops these U series processors are used. So the best case scenario is going to be 1080p at low graphic settings. I may be wrong, but even though the aspect ratio of the monitor is not 16:9, you can still apply a 1080p resolution. At most you just get black bars above and below. But that helps standardise testing for ease of comparison.
    Reply
  • Vastish
    Anyone have any estimate for when this unit will actually go up for sale in the US?
    Reply