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 RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB) review: 168 specs compared

Avg. price:~£530RAM capacity:2 GBInternal storage:32 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Nvidia Tegra 3

Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 30 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB)
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 79% of models
Score components

35%

5.7

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

5.7

Reviews score

10%

5.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 79% of tablets
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 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 64% of models
Score components

22%

4.4

Performance

20%

5.8

Display

16%

5.9

Camera

14%

6.1

Battery

12%

6.6

Connectivity

8%

6.6

Software

5%

5.6

Design

3%

6.0

Audio

â–¼Worse than 64%
5.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.7/ 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 74% of models

5.7

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

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

8.8

Popularity

Grades by review (30)
22 reviews: 10 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 74%
?

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
  • asus-vivotab-rt-32gb-2gb-32gb-cellular
asus-vivotab-rt-32gb-2gb-32gb-cellular
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 RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB)

Based on 22 · 8

Reviewers praise the light, slim body and long battery life, but the limited app selection and keyboard dock divide opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB)

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 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 64% of models
Score components:

22%

4.4

Performance

20%

5.8

Display

16%

5.9

Camera

14%

6.1

Battery

12%

6.6

Connectivity

8%

6.6

Software

5%

5.6

Design

3%

6.0

Audio

5.7
Reviews score
5.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

6.7
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
40 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 40 nm process, which is larger than 86.9% of tablets and equal to 8% 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
Nvidia Tegra 3
This tablet runs on Nvidia Tegra 3, which is less advanced than 64.8% of tablets and equal to 2.9% 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
Chemically Strengthened Glass
This tablet protects its screen with Chemically Strengthened Glass, which is less durable than 65.1% of tablets and the same as 12.9% of tablets.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
What reviewers say
Battery capacity
?
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
9 hours
Market range: <7 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 9 hours, which is shorter than that of 62.7% of tablets and equal to that of 6.9% 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
What reviewers say
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
?
FM radio
no
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (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.
  • Manual focus control
    This tablet supports manual focus, while the average tablet does not. 36.9% of tablets support manual focus.
  • Monitors battery health
    This tablet monitors battery health, while the average tablet does not. 36.7% of tablets monitor battery health.
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (Nvidia Tegra 3 vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    Nvidia Tegra 3 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • Supports cellular data
    This tablet supports cellular data, while the average tablet does not. 47.4% of tablets offer this.
  • 8 more GPU execution units
    This tablet has more GPU execution units than the average tablet (12 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 4
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (Nvidia Tegra 3 vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    Nvidia Tegra 3 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 8 more GPU execution units
    This tablet has more GPU execution units than the average tablet (12 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    12 vs 4
  • More advanced memory type
    This tablet uses more advanced memory than the average tablet (DDR3 vs LPDDR3).
    DDR3 vs LPDDR3
  • 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
  • Manual focus control
    This tablet supports manual focus, while the average tablet does not. 36.9% of tablets support manual focus.
  • 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
  • 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
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51).
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 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
  • 2.86x larger process node
    This tablet has a larger process node than the average tablet (40 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet is built on 14 nm.
    40 nm vs 14 nm
  • 35% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1.3 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1.3 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 18.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.7/ 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 74% of models

    5.7

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

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (30)
    22 reviews: 10 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.7 vs 7.0
  • 25.3% lower sentiment score
    5.6 vs 7.5
  • 13.1% worse value for money
    Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.68 vs 7.6).
    6.68 vs 7.55
  • 2.04x more expensive
    Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (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
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51).
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 2.86x larger process node
    This tablet has a larger process node than the average tablet (40 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet is built on 14 nm.
    40 nm vs 14 nm
  • 35% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1.3 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1.3 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 59.7% less memory bandwidth
    This tablet has less memory bandwidth than the average tablet (6 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has 14.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
    6 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
  • 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
  • 366 MHz slower RAM speed
    This tablet has a lower RAM speed than the average tablet (1,500 MHz vs 1,866 MHz). The average tablet has RAM speed of 1,866 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,866 MHz
  • 20% slower GPU clock
    This tablet runs its GPU slower than the average tablet (520 MHz vs 650 MHz). The average tablet runs its GPU at 650 MHz.
    520 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
  • Less durable glass
    This tablet has less durable glass than the average tablet (Chemically Strengthened Glass vs Corning Gorilla Glass). The average tablet uses Corning Gorilla Glass.
    Chemically Strengthened Glass vs Corning Gorilla Glass
  • 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 HDR photo mode
    This tablet does not have HDR photo mode, the average tablet does. 79.8% of tablets support HDR photo mode.
  • No manual white balance
    This tablet does not support manual white balance, while the average tablet does. 51.5% of tablets support manual white balance.
  • 1 hours shorter battery life
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (9 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    9 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)
  • Fewer Wi-Fi bands
    This tablet supports fewer Wi-Fi bands than the average tablet (2.4GHz vs 2.4GHz/5GHz). The average tablet supports 2.4GHz/5GHz Wi-Fi bands.
    2.4GHz vs 2.4GHz/5GHz
  • No face recognition
    This tablet does not have face recognition, the average tablet does. 56.4% of tablets support face recognition.
  • No Ethernet support
    This tablet does not have Ethernet support, the average tablet does. 76.5% of tablets support Ethernet.
  • 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 dark mode
    This tablet does not support dark mode, while the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets offer this.
  • 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

Video reviews

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

9.0
PhoneArena
≈ estimated
14/12/2012
Hands-on review · battery, camera and performance tests
Verdict
Asus VivoTab RT Cellular is an attractive tablet with excellent battery life and a useful keyboard dock.
5.0
Mark Johnson
≈ estimated
05/11/2012
Full review · camera, apps and price assessment
Verdict
Asus VivoTab RT Cellular is hard to recommend at its full price, though the thin, light design feels good.
7.0
UltrabookReview
≈ estimated
23/10/2012
Hands-on review · apps, hardware and battery tests
Verdict
Asus VivoTab RT Cellular is an interesting, well-built tablet, but Windows RT's thin app library and high price hold it back.
9.3
Tablet-News.com
✓ explicit
23/10/2012
Full review · design, battery, apps and games
Verdict
Asus VivoTab RT Cellular is a brilliant Windows RT tablet with great design and battery life, though the price is a bit high.
8.0
HotHardware
≈ estimated
23/10/2012
First look · hands-on performance and gaming test
Verdict
Asus VivoTab RT Cellular is very responsive and efficient, though the app store is still thin.
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
23/10/2012
Long-form review · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a sturdy, good-looking Windows RT tablet with a bright IPS screen, and its base price now includes the keyboard dock.
6.0
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
22/01/2013
Lab test · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a slim, long-lasting tablet, but its cramped keyboard, flexing build and small app choice make it hard to recommend over Surface.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
29/10/2012
Full review · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a stylish, responsive Windows 8 tablet whose benefits justify its higher price, though proprietary ports and app limits hold it back.
6.7
theverge.com
✓ explicit
23/10/2012
Hands-on review · Transformer-style tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a good-looking tablet whose dock doubles as a stand, but tiny keys and a thin app selection keep it from being a real laptop.
7.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
23/10/2012
Hands-on review · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a stylish, easy-to-hold Windows tablet that multitasks well, but it falls short of iPad and Android rivals as a tablet.
6.0
uk.pcmag.com
≈ estimated
16/05/2014
Battery test · Clamshell tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a light, long-lasting travel tablet for web and Office, but a small app selection and cramped keyboard hold it back.
9.0
trustedreviews.com
≈ estimated
30/08/2012
First look · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a well-built, good-looking tablet with a sharp screen, but no memory card slot and few ports hold it back.
7.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
13/11/2012
Full review · Battery and keyboard
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a long-lasting, light travel tablet for web and Office, but its thin app store and finicky trackpad hold it back.
8.0
t3.com
≈ estimated
06/09/2012
Hands-on test · Dock design
Verdict
The Asus Vivo Tab RT is slim and light, and its low battery placement makes the docked version feel more like a notebook, though early Windows apps are scarce.
7.2
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
04/12/2012
Full test · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is light and easy to use through its Start screen tiles, but narrow viewing angles, short battery life and a small app range hold it back.
7.0
sueddeutsche.de
≈ estimated
18/11/2012
Hands-on test · Windows RT
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT suits people already using Microsoft software who want a light, office-capable tablet, but app choice is still thin.
7.7
computerwoche.de
✓ explicit
10/04/2013
Lab test · Battery and speed
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a light, fast-feeling tablet whose dock and USB port suit Office work, but modest battery life and a thin app store hold it back.
5.0
futurezone.at
≈ estimated
03/03/2013
Review · Keyboard dock battery
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT offers long battery life with the dock, but its weak performance and Windows RT limits make Android tablets the more sensible choice.
8.0
heise.de
≈ estimated
14/01/2013
Full review · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is bright, light and strong on sound for a tablet, but its small app store and sharpness trail the iPad and Nexus 10.
7.0
spiegel.de
≈ estimated
02/11/2012
Hands-on test · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a light, long-lasting Windows RT tablet that suits email and couch browsing, but its limited app store and missing Outlook hold it back.
8.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
05/11/2012
Lab test · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a light, quick-responding Windows RT tablet, held back by middling battery life and a thin app selection.
7.0
techboys.de
≈ estimated
23/12/2012
Review · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is a sturdy, well-finished Windows RT tablet that suits writing and Office work, though its screen is only average.
5.0
clubic.com
✓ explicit
26/11/2012
Hands-on test · Surface rival
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is lighter than the Surface, with a better touchpad, but its small keys and heavier dock setup make typing harder than on the Surface.
7.0
quechoisir.org
≈ estimated
30/01/2013
Lab test · Everyday use
Verdict
The Asus VivoTab RT is well built and easy to use, with a strong email app, but it is pricey and slow to start up.
6.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
09/12/2012
Full review · Windows RT tablet
Verdict
The Asus Vivo Tab RT has a bright screen and a working Office preview, but with only a handful of apps it suits Microsoft users more than app lovers.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB)

  • Exceptional battery life, reaching up to 16 hours when using the mobile keyboard dock.
  • Extremely thin and lightweight design (approx. 520g), making it more portable than the iPad 4 or Surface RT.
  • Highly vibrant and bright Super IPS+ display (600 nits) that offers good outdoor visibility.
  • Bundled Microsoft Office 2013 RT provides significant productivity value for students and workers.
  • Superior rear camera performance (8MP) compared to many contemporary tablets like the Surface RT.
  • Inclusion of NFC and highly accurate GPS, which were missing on several rival devices.

What customers don't like about Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB)

  • Severe lack of third-party applications in the Windows Store compared to iOS and Android.
  • Windows RT operating system does not support legacy desktop software (.exe files).
  • The keyboard dock is notoriously cramped, leading to frequent typing errors and discomfort during long sessions.
  • Occasional touchscreen sensitivity issues where taps are not registered or are registered inaccurately.
  • Build quality concerns, specifically regarding the flimsy plastic charging port and the asymmetric bezels.
  • Lack of a built-in full-size USB port or SD card slot on the tablet itself, requiring proprietary adapters or the dock.

Verdict

The Asus VivoTab RT Cellular is a slim, 1.16-pound hybrid tablet featuring a 10.1-inch Super IPS+ display with 1366x768 resolution and 600-nit brightness for outdoor visibility. It is powered by a quad-core 1.3 GHz NVIDIA Tegra 3 processor with 2GB of RAM and 32GB of internal eMMC storage, expandable via a microSD slot. Key characteristics include HSPA+ cellular connectivity, 8MP rear and 2MP front cameras, and the Windows RT operating system with Microsoft Office 2013 pre-installed. Main pros include its highly portable design, exceptionally bright display, and extended battery life of up to 16 hours when paired with its optional mobile keyboard dock. However, common cons include the limited selection of apps in the Windows Store, a somewhat cramped keyboard on the dock, and reported hardware issues such as touchscreen sensitivity or 'ghost touch' glitches.

Compare Asus VivoTab RT Cellular (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 RT Cellular (2GB + 32GB) and other tablets

No results found