OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Tablets Methodology v1.0
Tablets Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Tablets Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Tablets Methodology v1.0

Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) Review | 168 Data compared

Avg. price:~£530RAM capacity:2 GBInternal storage:64 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Nvidia Tegra 3

Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

5.7

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the smartphone's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best Tablets on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

90%

5.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 67% of tablets
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartphone's technical performance, covering eight key areas: performance & hardware, software, camera, connectivity, display, battery, audio, and design.
When it matters
When you want to compare Tablets based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

22%

4.6

Performance

20%

6.5

Display

16%

5.9

Camera

14%

4.9

Battery

12%

6.2

Connectivity

8%

7.4

Software & Features

5%

5.5

Design

3%

5.5

Audio & Multimedia

â–¼Worse than 62% of tablets
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
When it matters
When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB)

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartphone's technical performance, covering eight key areas: performance & hardware, software, camera, connectivity, display, battery, audio, and design.
When it matters
When you want to compare Tablets based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

22%

4.6

Performance

20%

6.5

Display

16%

5.9

Camera

14%

4.9

Battery

12%

6.2

Connectivity

8%

7.4

Software & Features

5%

5.5

Design

3%

5.5

Audio & Multimedia

5.7
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
When it matters
When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the smartphone.
When it matters
When you prefer to purchase a product chosen and reviewed by many other consumers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) has a popularity of 1 point, which is higher than 65.8% of Tablets.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the smartphone's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a smartphone with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components:

60%

5.7

Overall score

40%

7.7

Price

6.3
RAM capacity
2 GB
RAM capacity
2 GB
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
This tablet has a RAM capacity of 2 GB which is smaller than the RAM capacity of 60.9% of tablets and equal to that of 15.6% of tablets.
Process node
40 nm
Process node
40 nm
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 40 nm process node, which is larger than the node size used in 86.8% of tablets and equal to the node used in 8% of tablets.
Internal storage
64 GB
Internal storage
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 43% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
This tablet has an internal storage capacity of 64 GB which is larger than the storage of 39.5% of tablets and equal to that of 17.1% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
?
Chipset
Nvidia Tegra 3
Chipset
Nvidia Tegra 3
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra 3 chipset, which is less advanced than the chipsets in 64.8% of tablets and equal to those in 2.9% of tablets.
Show more
Screen resolution
1366×768
Screen resolution
1366×768
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This tablet has a screen resolution of 1366×768 which is lower than that of 65.6% of tablets and equal to that of 2.5% of tablets.
Refresh rate
?
Display type
IPS LCD
Display type
IPS LCD
â–² Better than 17% of models
This tablet uses a IPS LCD display type. 17% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
155 ppi
Pixel density
155 ppi
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 155 ppi which is lower than that of 84.5% of tablets and equal to that of 2% of tablets.
Display glass type
?
Show more
Optical image stabilization
no
Optical image stabilization
no
Category Benchmark
This tablet does not support optical image stabilization. 0.4% of tablets include OIS.
Main camera megapixels
8 MP
Main camera megapixels
8 MP
â–² Better than 37% of models
Market range: <3.15 MP – >13 MP
This tablet has a main camera resolution of 8 MP which is higher than that of 36.5% of tablets and equal to that of 31.8% of tablets.
Front camera megapixels
2 MP
Front camera megapixels
2 MP
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera resolution of 2 MP which is lower than in 53.6% of tablets and equal to that in 25.5% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
f/2.2
Main camera aperture
f/2.2
â–¼ Worse than 43% of models
This tablet has a main camera aperture of f/2.2 which is wider than that of 30.2% of tablets and equal to that of 27.3% of tablets.
Optical zoom
1xxx
Optical zoom
1xx
â–² Better than 18% of models
This tablet supports 1xx optical zoom which is higher than in 18.4% of tablets and equal to that in 80.7% of tablets.
Show more
Battery capacity
6,760 mAh
Battery capacity
6,760 mAh
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has a battery capacity of 6,760 mAh which is larger than the batteries in 51.9% of tablets and equal to those in 0.4% of tablets.
Charging speed
18 W
Charging speed
18 W
â–² Better than 48% of models
Market range: <10 W – >60 W
This tablet supports charging speeds of 18 W which is faster than in 48% of tablets and equal to speeds in 12.3% of tablets.
Battery life
9 hours
Battery life
9 hours
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <6 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 6.8% of tablets.
Wireless charging
no
Wireless charging
no
â–¼ Worse than 2% of models
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets support wireless charging.
Fast charging
no
Fast charging
no
â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
This tablet does not support fast charging. 49.7% of tablets support fast charging.
Show more
LTE support
no
LTE support
no
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This tablet does not support LTE. 63.3% of tablets include LTE connectivity.
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
Category Benchmark
This tablet supports Wi-Fi connectivity. 0.2% of tablets offer Wi-Fi support.
GPS
yes
GPS
yes
â–² Better than 17% of models
This tablet supports GPS. 17.3% of tablets include GPS functionality.
5G connectivity
no
5G connectivity
no
â–¼ Worse than 11% of models
This tablet does not support 5G connectivity. 11.1% of tablets support 5G.
NFC
yes
NFC
yes
â–² Better than 89% of models
This tablet supports NFC. 89.1% of tablets support NFC.
Show more
Operating system
Windows
Operating system
Windows
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
This tablet uses the Windows operating system, which is less advanced than the one used by 84.1%.
Update support duration
long
Update support duration
long
â–² Better than 80% of models
This tablet offers long update support, which is longer than the support period of 80% of tablets and equal to that of 20% of tablets.
Direct OS updates
yes
Direct OS updates
yes
â–² Better than 20% of models
This tablet receives direct OS updates. 20.3% of tablets receive direct updates.
On-device AI
no
On-device AI
no
â–¼ Worse than 28% of models
This tablet does not support on-device AI. 28.3% of tablets support this capability.
App tracking protection
no
App tracking protection
no
â–¼ Worse than 28% of models
This tablet does not include app tracking protection. 28.3% of tablets include app tracking protection.
Show more
IP rating
not rated
IP rating
not rated
â–¼ Worse than 16% of models
This tablet has an IP rating of not rated which is lower than that of 16.3% of tablets and equal to that of 83.7% of tablets.
Weight
535 g
Weight
535 g
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 535 g which is heavier than 63.1% of tablets and equal to the weight of 0.3% of tablets.
Backlit keyboard
no
Backlit keyboard
no
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.8% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
yes
Keyboard accessory
yes
â–² Better than 16% of models
This tablet supports a keyboard accessory. 15.8% of tablets support this option.
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
Number of microphones
?
aptX Adaptive
no
aptX Adaptive
no
â–¼ Worse than 7% of models
This tablet does not support aptX Adaptive. 6.9% of tablets offer this codec.
Dolby Atmos support
no
Dolby Atmos support
no
â–¼ Worse than 31% of models
This tablet does not support Dolby Atmos. 31.5% of tablets support Dolby Atmos.
N. of speakers
2
N. of speakers
2
â–¼ Worse than 29% of models
Market range: <1 – >6
This tablet includes 2 speakers, which is more than in 9.8% of tablets and equal to the number in 60.9% of tablets.
FM radio
no
FM radio
no
â–¼ Worse than 19% of models
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer FM radio functionality.
Show more

Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftware & FeaturesDesignAudio & Multimedia
  • 200 nits higher typical brightness
    Typical brightness
    600 nits
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <300 nits – >600 nits
    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
  • Longer update support
    Update support duration
    long
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This tablet offers longer update support than the average tablet (long vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    long vs medium
  • Supports NFC
    NFC
    yes
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    This tablet has NFC support, the average tablet does not. 10.9% of tablets include NFC.
  • Includes battery health monitoring
    Battery health monitoring
    yes
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    This tablet features battery health monitoring, the average tablet does not. 37% of tablets include battery health tools.
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Nvidia Tegra 3
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra 3 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Nvidia Tegra 3 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 8 more GPU execution units
    GPU execution units
    12
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >24
    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
  • 495 Hz higher PWM dimming frequency
    PWM dimming frequency
    495 Hz
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <0 Hz – >2.9k Hz
    This tablet has a higher PWM dimming frequency than the average tablet (495 Hz vs 0 Hz). The average tablet has PWM dimming frequency of 0 Hz.
    Below 45% brightness only.
    495 Hz vs 0 Hz
  • Includes flash
    Flash
    yes
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    This tablet features a built-in flash, the average tablet does not. 45.2% of tablets include a flash.
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Nvidia Tegra 3
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra 3 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Nvidia Tegra 3 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 8 more GPU execution units
    GPU execution units
    12
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >24
    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
  • Newer DDR memory version
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This tablet supports a newer DDR version than the average tablet (DDR3L vs LPDDR3). The average DDR version is LPDDR3.
    DDR3L vs LPDDR3
  • 200 nits higher typical brightness
    Typical brightness
    600 nits
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <300 nits – >600 nits
    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
  • 495 Hz higher PWM dimming frequency
    PWM dimming frequency
    495 Hz
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <0 Hz – >2.9k Hz
    This tablet has a higher PWM dimming frequency than the average tablet (495 Hz vs 0 Hz). The average tablet has PWM dimming frequency of 0 Hz.
    Below 45% brightness only.
    495 Hz vs 0 Hz
  • Includes flash
    Flash
    yes
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    This tablet features a built-in flash, the average tablet does not. 45.2% of tablets include a flash.
  • Includes battery health monitoring
    Battery health monitoring
    yes
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    This tablet features battery health monitoring, the average tablet does not. 37% of tablets include battery health tools.
  • Supports NFC
    NFC
    yes
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    This tablet has NFC support, the average tablet does not. 10.9% of tablets include NFC.
  • Longer update support
    Update support duration
    long
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This tablet offers longer update support than the average tablet (long vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    long vs medium
  • No USB Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a USB Type-C port, the average tablet includes one. 53.4% of tablets use USB Type-C.
  • Worse GPU
    GPU model
    ULP GeForce
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This tablet uses the ULP GeForce GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 3 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    2 MP
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (2 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    2 MP vs 5 MP
  • Less advanced operating system
    Operating system
    Windows
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    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 LTE support
    LTE support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This tablet does not support LTE, the average tablet does. 63.2% of tablets support LTE.
  • 2.86x larger process node
    Process node
    40 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
    This tablet uses a larger process node than the average tablet (40 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet uses a process node of 14 nm.
    40 nm vs 14 nm
  • 30.8% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    155 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (155 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    155 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • 35% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.2 GHz – >3.2 GHz
    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
  • 4.81x less popular
    Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) is less popular than the average tablet (1 vs 4.8).
    1 vs 4.81
  • 2.04x more expensive
    Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) is more expensive than the average tablet (£530 vs £260).
    £530 vs £260
  • 12.4% worse value for money
    Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.32 vs 7.1).
    6.32 vs 7.1
  • Worse GPU
    GPU model
    ULP GeForce
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This tablet uses the ULP GeForce GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 2.86x larger process node
    Process node
    40 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
    This tablet uses a larger process node than the average tablet (40 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet uses a process node of 14 nm.
    40 nm vs 14 nm
  • 35% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1.3 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1.2 GHz – >3.2 GHz
    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
    RAM capacity
    2 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (2 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    2 GB vs 4 GB
  • 2 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This tablet has less CPU threads than the average tablet (4 vs 6). The average tablet has 6 CPU threads.
    4 vs 6
  • No big.LITTLE architecture
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    This tablet does not use a big.LITTLE architecture, the average tablet does. 51.3% of tablets use a big.LITTLE architecture.
  • 57% lower memory bandwidth
    Memory bandwidth
    6.4 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <4.26 GB/s – >60 GB/s
    This tablet has a lower memory bandwidth than the average tablet (6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has memory bandwidth of 14.9 GB/s.
    6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • 366 MHz slower RAM speed
    RAM speed
    1,500 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <800 MHz – >6.4k MHz
    This tablet has a lower RAM speed than the average tablet (1500 MHz vs 1866 MHz). The average tablet has RAM speed of 1866 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,866 MHz
  • 20% slower GPU clock
    GPU frequency
    520 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <311 MHz – >1.1k MHz
    This tablet has a lower GPU frequency than the average tablet (520 MHz vs 650 MHz). The average tablet has GPU frequency of 650 MHz.
    520 MHz vs 650 MHz
  • 30.8% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    155 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (155 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    155 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • 66 ppi lower screen sharpness
    Screen sharpness
    155 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower screen sharpness than the average tablet (155 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has screen sharpness of 221 ppi.
    155 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • Lower screen resolution
    Screen resolution
    1366×768
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This tablet has a lower screen resolution than the average tablet (1366×768 vs 1920×1200). The average tablet has a resolution of 1920×1200.
    1366×768 vs 1920×1200
  • 3 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    2 MP
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (2 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    2 MP vs 5 MP
  • No continuous video AF
    Continuous autofocus in video
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • No manual exposure control
    Manual exposure
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This tablet does not offer manual exposure control, the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets have manual exposure.
  • No HDR photo mode
    HDR photo mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    This tablet does not have HDR photo mode, the average tablet does. 79.6% of tablets support HDR photo mode.
  • No manual white balance
    Manual white balance
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    This tablet does not allow manual white balance adjustments, the average tablet does. 51.6% of tablets include white balance controls.
  • 1 hours shorter battery life
    Battery life
    9 hours
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 hours – >16 hours
    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 Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a USB Type-C port, the average tablet includes one. 53.4% of tablets use USB Type-C.
  • No LTE support
    LTE support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This tablet does not support LTE, the average tablet does. 63.2% of tablets support LTE.
  • Older Wi-Fi version
    Wi-Fi version
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This tablet uses an older Wi-Fi version than the average tablet (Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)). The average tablet uses Wi-Fi Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac).
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
  • Older Bluetooth version
    Bluetooth version
    4.0
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This tablet uses an older Bluetooth version than the average tablet (4 vs 5). The average tablet uses Bluetooth 5.0.
    4.0 vs 5.0
  • No face recognition
    Face recognition
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This tablet does not have face recognition, the average tablet does. 56% of tablets support face recognition.
  • Less advanced operating system
    Operating system
    Windows
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    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
    Picture-in-picture
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This tablet does not support picture-in-picture, the average tablet does. 61% of tablets support picture-in-picture.
  • No camera/mic privacy toggles
    Camera/mic privacy
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This tablet lacks camera and microphone privacy toggles, the average tablet includes them. 56.2% of tablets offer these toggles.
  • No full-page screenshots
    Full-page screenshots
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet does not support full-page screenshots, the average tablet does. 52.5% of tablets support full-page screenshots.
  • No widgets
    Widgets support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This tablet does not support widgets, the average tablet does. 93.5% of tablets support widgets.
  • No dark mode
    Dark mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
    This tablet does not support dark mode, the average tablet does. 57.2% of tablets have dark mode.
  • No offline voice recognition
    Offline voice recognition
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This tablet does not support offline voice recognition, the average tablet does. 76.1% of tablets support offline voice recognition.
  • 7 older release date
    Release date
    2012
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This tablet is an older model than the average tablet (2012 vs 2019).
    October 2012
    2012 vs 2019
  • 87.2 mm wider
    Width
    262.5 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <123.8 mm – >274 mm
    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
    Weight
    535 g
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <315 g – >730 g
    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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
t3.com
06/09/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT review: Hands-on
U
uk.pcmag.com
13/11/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT - Review 2012 - PCMag UK
U
uk.pcmag.com
16/05/2014
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT
H
hothardware.com
23/10/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT Review: Windows RT Takes Flight
P
pcworld.com
23/10/2012
Summary of the review
Review: Asus VivoTab RT has thoughtful design, but brings a mixed tablet experience
E
expertreviews.co.uk
22/01/2013
Summary of the review
Asus VivoTab RT review
T
techradar.com
29/10/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT review
L
laptopmag.com
22/10/2012
Summary of the review
ASUS Vivo Tab RT Review
T
theverge.com
23/10/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT review
A
arstechnica.com
23/10/2012
Summary of the review
My kingdom for some apps: The Asus VivoTab RT review
N
notebookcheck.net
15/01/2013
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT TF600 (3G Model Review)
S
sueddeutsche.de
18/11/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT im Test - Ultramobil, aber auch bürotauglich
(Translated)Show original
C
computerwoche.de
10/04/2013
Summary of the review
Tablet-PC: Asus Vivo Tab RT TF600T im Test
(Translated)Show original
C
connect.de
12/02/2013
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT im Test - Connect
(Translated)Show original
H
hifitest.de
01/01/2013
Summary of the review
technische Daten Tablets - Asus VivoTab RT 3G - Test
(Translated)Show original
F
futurezone.at
03/03/2013
Summary of the review
Asus VivoTab RT im Test: Das Marathon-Tablet
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbild.de
04/12/2012
Summary of the review
Windows-Tablet: Asus Vivo Tab RT im Test
(Translated)Show original
S
spiegel.de
02/11/2012
Summary of the review
Asus VivoTab RT im Test - DER SPIEGEL
(Translated)Show original
H
heise.de
14/01/2013
Summary of the review
Test: ASUS Vivo Tab RT - Bestenlisten - heise online
(Translated)Show original
C
chip.de
07/12/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT (TF600T-1B017R) (Tablet-PC) Test
(Translated)Show original
P
pcwelt.de
05/11/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT TF600T im Test
(Translated)Show original
Q
quechoisir.org
13/01/2023
Summary of the review
Test Asus Vivo Tab RT - Tablette tactile - Archive
(Translated)Show original
L
lemondenumerique.ouest-france.fr
12/11/2002
Summary of the review
Asus Vivotab RT TF600T - Le système Windows RT à 6
(Translated)Show original
T
tablette-tactile.net
12/12/2014
Summary of the review
Test de l’Asus Vivo Tab RT (TF600T): une transformer-like sous Windows RT
(Translated)Show original
C
clubic.com
12/11/2026
Summary of the review
Asus VivoTab RT: une concurrente pour Surface
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
13/01/2023
Summary of the review
Test Asus Vivo Tab RT TF600 - Une tablette au-dessus de la Surface?
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.biz
29/10/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT TF600 (3G/LTE) - Critique et Tests
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
09/12/2012
Summary of the review
ASUS VivoTab RT TF600T 32G [Análisis Completo en Español]
(Translated)Show original
X
xataka.com
10/02/2013
Summary of the review
ASUS Vivo Tab, análisis - Xataka
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
29/10/2012
Summary of the review
Asus Vivo Tab RT TF600 - Notebookcheck.nl(www.portablegear.nl) | 18 January 2013 | Asus VivoTab RT TF600T Review - PortableGear.nl Would you like to f...
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
31/08/2012
Summary of the review
Asus' Vivo Tab RT: Windows op een Tegra 3-tablet - Tweakers
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
11/12/2012
Summary of the review
Asus VivoTab RT: een Transformer met Windows RT - Tweakers(www.tabletguide.nl) | 14 December 2012 | Asus VivoTab RT (TF600T) review - TabletGuide.nl
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
14/01/2013
Summary of the review
ASUS VivoTab RT TF600T review: Windows RT volgens ASUS
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB)

  • Exceptionally thin and lightweight design, making it highly portable
  • Vibrant and ultra-bright Super IPS+ display (600 nits) with wide viewing angles
  • Phenomenal total battery life of up to 15-16 hours when used with the keyboard dock
  • Includes a full version of Microsoft Office 2013 Home & Student RT
  • Solid performance for daily tasks and smooth video playback thanks to the Tegra 3 processor
  • Features built-in NFC and GPS, which are sometimes absent in competing tablets

What we don't like about Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB)

  • Limited app selection in the Windows Store compared to iOS and Android ecosystems
  • Cramped and uncomfortable keyboard dock keys, making long typing sessions difficult
  • Windows RT lacks backward compatibility with traditional desktop (.exe) programs
  • Build quality concerns, specifically regarding plastic components and a finicky charging connector
  • The 1366x768 resolution is lower than some contemporary high-end rivals like the iPad Retina
  • Occasional software glitches, such as trackpad responsiveness issues and system freezes when undocking

Verdict

The Asus VivoTab RT (TF600T) is a 10.1-inch tablet featuring a 1366x768 Super IPS+ display protected by Corning Fit Glass. It is powered by a quad-core NVIDIA Tegra 3 processor clocked at 1.3GHz, 2GB of RAM, and 64GB of internal storage, running the Windows RT operating system. This specific model includes 3G connectivity for mobile data alongside Wi-Fi 4, Bluetooth 4.0, and NFC. Main pros include its extremely thin 8.3mm profile, a bright 600-nit screen suitable for outdoor use, an 8MP rear camera with LED flash, and exceptional battery life that extends up to 16 hours when paired with its optional mobile keyboard dock. However, common cons include the limited selection of applications in the Windows Store, a lack of support for traditional desktop software, and a somewhat cramped typing experience on the compact keyboard accessory.

Compare Asus Vivotab Rt 3G (2GB + 64GB) 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 3G (2GB + 64GB) and other tablets

No results found