OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Tablets Methodology v3.0
Tablets Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Tablets Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Tablets Methodology v3.0

Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB) review: 168 specs compared

Avg. price:~£530RAM capacity:2 GBInternal storage:32 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Intel Atom Z2760

Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 5 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, best-of lists, expert reviews and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 35%, List score 30%, Reviews score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

35%

5.6

Technical score

30%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

5.6

Reviews score

10%

5.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 82% of tablets
6.6

Value for money

Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the tablet's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a tablet with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 95%
5.6

Technical score

Technical score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

22%

4.9

Performance

20%

5.2

Display

16%

6.3

Camera

14%

4.3

Battery

12%

6.7

Connectivity

8%

6.7

Software

5%

6.7

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

â–¼Worse than 69%
5.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models

5.6

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

6.9

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 30% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £530
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB)

Based on 5

Reviewers are mostly let down by sluggish performance and disappointing battery life.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB)

Technical score
Technical score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components:

22%

4.9

Performance

20%

5.2

Display

16%

6.3

Camera

14%

4.3

Battery

12%

6.7

Connectivity

8%

6.7

Software

5%

6.7

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

5.6
Reviews score
5.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the tablet's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a tablet with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

6.6
RAM capacity
2 GB
Market range: <1 GB – >8 GB
This tablet has 2 GB of RAM, which is less than 61.3% of tablets and equal to 15.5% of tablets.
Process node
32 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 32 nm process, which is larger than 82.7% of tablets and equal to 4.2% of tablets.
Internal storage
32 GB
Market range: <16 GB – >256 GB
This tablet has 32 GB of internal storage, which is less than 60.9% of tablets and equal to 17.9% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core score
?
Chipset
Intel Atom Z2760
This tablet runs on Intel Atom Z2760, which is less advanced than 81.9% of tablets and equal to 1.1% of tablets.
Show more
What reviewers say
Screen resolution
1366×768
This tablet has a 1366×768 screen, which is less sharp than 65.6% of tablets and equal to 2.4% of tablets.
Refresh rate
60 Hz
Market range: <60 Hz – >120 Hz
This tablet has a 60 Hz screen, which is smoother than 0.1% of tablets and equal to 73.4% of tablets.
Display type
IPS LCD
This tablet uses a IPS LCD display type. 17% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
155 ppi
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 155 ppi, which is lower than 84.5% of tablets and equal to 1.9% of tablets.
Display glass type
Corning Gorilla Glass
This tablet protects its screen with Corning Gorilla Glass, which is more durable than 45.4% of tablets and the same as 32.8% of tablets.
Show more
Optical image stabilization
no
This tablet does not support optical stabilisation. 0.4% of tablets offer this.
Main camera megapixels
8 MP
Market range: <3.15 MP – >13 MP
This tablet has a rear camera with 8 MP resolution, which is higher than 36.4% of tablets and equal to 31.9% of tablets.
Front camera megapixels
2 MP
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera with 2 MP resolution, which is lower than 53.8% of tablets and equal to 25.5% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
f/2.2
This tablet has a main camera aperture of f/2.2, which is wider than 30.1% of tablets and equal to 27.3% of tablets.
Optical zoom
1xxx
This tablet has 1xx optical zoom, which is stronger than 18.2% of tablets and equal to 80.9% of tablets.
Show more
Battery capacity
2,950 mAh
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has 2,950 mAh battery capacity, which is smaller than 97.2% of tablets and equal to 0.3% of tablets.
Charging speed
18 W
Market range: <10 W – >45 W
This tablet charges at 18 W, which is faster than 48% of tablets and equal to 12.3% of tablets.
Battery life
8.5 hours
Market range: <7 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 8.5 hours, which is shorter than that of 70% of tablets and equal to that of 1.2% of tablets.
Wireless charging
no
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets offer this.
Fast charging
yes
This tablet supports fast charging. 43.2% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say
LTE support
yes
This tablet has built-in LTE. 57.1% of tablets offer this.
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
This tablet connects to Wi-Fi. 0.2% of tablets offer this.
GPS
yes
This tablet has built-in GPS. 17.1% of tablets offer this.
5G connectivity
no
This tablet does not support 5G. 8.1% of tablets offer this.
NFC
yes
This tablet includes NFC. 89.3% of tablets offer this.
Show more
Operating system
Windows
This tablet uses the Windows operating system, which is less advanced than the one used by 84.2%.
Update support duration
short
This tablet offers short update support, which is shorter than the support period of 52.4% of tablets and equal to that of 47.6% of tablets.
Direct OS updates
yes
This tablet supports direct OS updates. 20.3% of tablets offer this.
On-device AI
no
This tablet does not support on-device AI. 28.3% of tablets support this capability.
App tracking protection
no
This tablet does not support app tracking protection. 28.4% of tablets offer this.
Show more
IP rating
not rated
This tablet's IP rating is not rated, which is less protected than 16.5% of tablets and the same as 83.6% of tablets.
Weight
535 g
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 535 g, which is heavier than 63.1% of tablets and equal to 0.3% of tablets.
Backlit keyboard
no
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.7% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
yes
This tablet supports a keyboard accessory. 15.8% of tablets support this option.
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
Number of microphones
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This tablet has a microphone array of 1, which is more than 0.2% of tablets and equal to 54.8% of tablets.
aptX Adaptive
no
This tablet does not support aptX Adaptive. 6.9% of tablets offer this.
Dolby Atmos support
no
This tablet does not support Dolby Atmos. 31.3% of tablets support Dolby Atmos.
N. of speakers
2
Market range: <2 – >4
This tablet includes 2 speakers, which is more than in 9.8% of tablets and equal to the number in 60.8% of tablets.
FM radio
no
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer this.
Show more

Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftwareDesignAudio
  • 200 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (600 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    600 nits vs 400 nits
  • Supports LTE
    This tablet supports LTE, while the average tablet does not. 42.9% of tablets support LTE.
  • Includes NFC
    This tablet includes NFC, while the average tablet does not. 10.8% of tablets include NFC.
  • Monitors battery health
    This tablet monitors battery health, while the average tablet does not. 36.7% of tablets monitor battery health.
  • Stylus included
    This tablet includes a stylus, while the average tablet does not. 17.2% of tablets offer this.
  • Supports drawing
    This tablet is suitable for drawing, while the average tablet is not. 40% of tablets are suitable for drawing.
  • Supports multithreading
    This tablet supports multithreading, while the average tablet does not. 9.9% of tablets support multithreading.
  • Supports cellular data
    This tablet supports cellular data, while the average tablet does not. 47.4% of tablets offer this.
  • Supports multithreading
    This tablet supports multithreading, while the average tablet does not. 9.9% of tablets support multithreading.
  • 200 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (600 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    600 nits vs 400 nits
  • Built-in camera flash
    This tablet has a camera flash, while the average tablet does not. 45.5% of tablets have one.
  • Monitors battery health
    This tablet monitors battery health, while the average tablet does not. 36.7% of tablets monitor battery health.
  • Supports LTE
    This tablet supports LTE, while the average tablet does not. 42.9% of tablets support LTE.
  • Includes NFC
    This tablet includes NFC, while the average tablet does not. 10.8% of tablets include NFC.
  • Supports cellular data
    This tablet supports cellular data, while the average tablet does not. 47.4% of tablets offer this.
  • Supports HDMI output
    This tablet supports HDMI output, while the average tablet does not. 49.8% of tablets offer this.
    micro-HDMI port
  • Stylus included
    This tablet includes a stylus, while the average tablet does not. 17.2% of tablets offer this.
  • Supports drawing
    This tablet is suitable for drawing, while the average tablet is not. 40% of tablets are suitable for drawing.
  • No USB-C port
    This tablet does not have a USB Type-C port, while the average tablet does. 54% of tablets have one.
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This tablet has fewer CPU threads than the average tablet (4 vs 8). The average tablet has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 55.3% smaller battery capacity
    This tablet has a smaller battery capacity than the average tablet (2,950 mAh vs 6,600 mAh). The average tablet offers 6,600 mAh of battery capacity.
    2,950 mAh vs 6,600 mAh
  • Shorter update support
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • 3 MP lower front resolution
    This tablet has a lower-resolution front camera than the average tablet (2 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has a front camera of 5 MP.
    2 MP vs 5 MP
  • Less advanced operating system
    This tablet runs on a less advanced operating system than the average tablet (Windows vs Android). Operating system choice shapes app support, updates, and ecosystem features.
    Windows vs Android
  • No continuous video AF
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • 20.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models

    5.6

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.6 vs 7.0
  • 20.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models

    5.6

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.6 vs 7.0
  • 25.3% lower sentiment score
    5.6 vs 7.5
  • 14.2% worse value for money
    Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.61 vs 7.6).
    6.61 vs 7.55
  • 2.04x more expensive
    Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB) is more expensive than the average tablet (£530 vs £260).
    £530 vs £260
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This tablet has fewer CPU threads than the average tablet (4 vs 8). The average tablet has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 2 GB less RAM
    This tablet has less RAM than the average tablet (2 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    2 GB vs 4 GB
  • 2.29x larger process node
    This tablet has a larger process node than the average tablet (32 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet is built on 14 nm.
    32 nm vs 14 nm
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (PowerVR SGX545 vs Mali-G51).
    PowerVR SGX545 vs Mali-G51
  • No big.LITTLE architecture
    This tablet does not support big.LITTLE architecture, while the average tablet does. 51.7% of tablets support big.LITTLE architecture.
  • 57% less memory bandwidth
    This tablet has less memory bandwidth than the average tablet (6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has 14.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
    6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • 50% less internal storage
    This tablet has less internal storage than the average tablet (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average tablet has 64 GB of internal storage.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 10% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1.8 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1.8 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 7 years older
    This tablet was released earlier than the average tablet (2012 vs 2019). The average tablet was released in 2019.
    October 2012
    2012 vs 2019
  • More basic memory type
    This tablet uses less advanced memory than the average tablet (LPDDR2 vs LPDDR3).
    LPDDR2 vs LPDDR3
  • 18% slower GPU clock
    This tablet runs its GPU slower than the average tablet (533 MHz vs 650 MHz). The average tablet runs its GPU at 650 MHz.
    533 MHz vs 650 MHz
  • 29.9% softer screen detail
    This tablet has softer screen detail than the average tablet (155 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has a pixel density of 221 ppi.
    155 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • 51 nits dimmer screen
    This tablet is dimmer than the average tablet (350 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits.
    350 nits vs 401 nits
  • Less vivid contrast
    This tablet has less contrast than the average tablet (782:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet has a contrast ratio of 1015:1.
    782:1 vs 1,015:1
  • Less sharp display
    This tablet has a less sharp screen than the average tablet (1366×768 vs 1920×1200).
    1,366×768 vs 1,920×1,200
  • 3 MP lower front resolution
    This tablet has a lower-resolution front camera than the average tablet (2 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has a front camera of 5 MP.
    2 MP vs 5 MP
  • No continuous video AF
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • No manual exposure control
    This tablet does not support manual exposure, while the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets support manual exposure.
  • No timelapse video
    This tablet does not support timelapse video, while the average tablet does. 57.5% of tablets support timelapse video.
  • 55.3% smaller battery capacity
    This tablet has a smaller battery capacity than the average tablet (2,950 mAh vs 6,600 mAh). The average tablet offers 6,600 mAh of battery capacity.
    2,950 mAh vs 6,600 mAh
  • 1.5 hours shorter battery life
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (8.5 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    8.5 hours vs 10 hours
  • No USB-C port
    This tablet does not have a USB Type-C port, while the average tablet does. 54% of tablets have one.
  • Older Wi-Fi standard
    This tablet has an older Wi-Fi standard than the average tablet (Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)).
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
  • Older Bluetooth version
    This tablet has an older Bluetooth version than the average tablet (4 vs 5).
    4 vs 5
  • No face recognition
    This tablet does not have face recognition, the average tablet does. 56.4% of tablets support face recognition.
  • Shorter update support
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • Less advanced operating system
    This tablet runs on a less advanced operating system than the average tablet (Windows vs Android). Operating system choice shapes app support, updates, and ecosystem features.
    Windows vs Android
  • No picture-in-picture mode
    This tablet does not support picture-in-picture, the average tablet does. 61.4% of tablets support picture-in-picture.
  • No camera and mic privacy
    This tablet does not support camera and mic privacy, while the average tablet does. 56.6% of tablets offer this.
  • No full-page screenshots
    This tablet does not support full-page screenshots, the average tablet does. 53% of tablets support full-page screenshots.
  • No offline voice recognition
    This tablet does not support offline voice recognition, the average tablet does. 76.4% of tablets support offline voice recognition.
  • 87.2 mm wider
    This tablet is wider than the average tablet (262.5 mm vs 175.3 mm). The average tablet is 175.3 mm wide.
    262.5 mm vs 175.3 mm
  • 9.2% heavier
    This tablet is heavier than the average tablet (535 g vs 490 g). The average tablet weighs 490 g.
    535 g vs 490 g
  • 62.5 mm taller
    This tablet is taller than the average tablet (262.5 mm vs 200 mm). The average tablet is 200 mm tall.
    262.5 mm vs 200 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pocket-lint.com
✓ explicit
16/04/2013
Hands-on review · Windows 8 hybrid
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab Smart feels fast in Windows 8 with long battery life, but it stutters on 1080p video and lacks 5GHz Wi-Fi.
8.0
connect.de
≈ estimated
10/04/2013
Review · LTE Windows tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab Smart LTE is a stylish Windows 8 tablet with LTE for mobile internet, but its battery lasts only about 3.5 hours in mixed use.
8.0
heise.de
≈ estimated
14/01/2013
Review · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The ASUS Vivo Tab RT is a light, bright tablet that works well with its keyboard dock, but short battery life and a thin app store hold it back.
7.0
saggiamente.com
✓ explicit
18/05/2013
Review · Windows 8 tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab Smart is a light, quick Windows 8 tablet for browsing and office work, but heavy programs like Photoshop run slowly.
7.0
hardware.info
≈ estimated
10/02/2013
Review · Windows hybrid tablet
Verdict
The ASUS VivoTab TF810C is a well-finished Windows tablet whose dock battery lasts very long, but its weak Atom processor and steep price hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB)

  • Exceptional battery life, lasting up to 19 hours with the optional keyboard dock
  • Runs full Windows 8, allowing the installation of standard desktop applications
  • Bright IPS display with wide viewing angles and vibrant colours
  • Lightweight and portable design, especially without the dock
  • Includes a high-quality Wacom digitiser stylus for accurate note-taking and sketching
  • Silent operation due to a fanless, passive cooling design

What customers don't like about Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB)

  • Weak and tinny internal speakers that vibrate the chassis at higher volumes
  • Intermittent performance lag and slow application launch times due to the Intel Atom processor
  • Limited built-in storage, with Windows 8 occupying a large portion of the advertised 64GB
  • Poor port selection, lacking full-size USB or SD slots without the dock or adapters
  • Cramped keyboard on the optional dock can be difficult for long typing sessions
  • Lower screen resolution compared to contemporaries like the iPad Retina

Verdict

The Asus VivoTab 4G (VivoTab RT TF600TL) is a lightweight 10.1-inch tablet featuring a Super IPS+ display with 1366 x 768 resolution and 600 nits of brightness for outdoor visibility. Powered by a quad-core NVIDIA Tegra 3 processor and 2GB of RAM, this 32GB model runs the Windows RT operating system and includes 4G LTE connectivity, an 8MP rear camera with LED flash, and a 2MP front camera. Main pros include its slim 8.3mm profile, impressive battery life of up to 9 hours (extendable with an optional keyboard dock), and built-in NFC support. However, notable cons include the limited app ecosystem of Windows RT, the lack of a full-size USB port without adapters, and a display resolution that is lower than several contemporary high-end competitors.

Compare Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB) with other tablets

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Asus VivoTab 4G (2GB + 32GB) and other tablets

No results found