Asus Memo Pad 7 ME176C review

Synthetic benchmarks

The newest generation Asus Memo Pad 7 has been upgraded from the quad-core 1.2GHz Mediatek chip of its predecessor to a quad-core 1.86GHz Intel Atom Z3745 processor. This is the same Intel chip that powers many full-fledged Windows tablets, hybrid and otherwise. It is coupled with only 1GB of RAM, however, which has been problematic for some graphic-intensive Android tasks in the past.

As is usual in our testing we started with all-around and CPU-focused benchmarks, moved through to the GPU-intense ones and finally look at some HTML 5 and JavaScript tests.

The first tests are GeekBench 3 and Basemark OS II. Both stress the CPU as well as the system (memory read-write speed, graphics performance, the lot). The Intel Atom Z3745 is built using a 22nm, which is expected to be more power efficient than its 28nm Qualcomm Snapdragon and MediaTek counterparts. But does it provide the same performance?

Overall results are pretty good, with the Memo Pad 7 falling behind only behind the top-tier competition - Snapdragon 800, Exynos octa-core and the Nvidia Tegra K1 - all available in far higher market segments.

Multi-core numbers are even more in favor of the Atom chip, as its able to beat out Samsung's Exynos both in overall numbers and specifically under multi-core performance.

GeekBench 3

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  3276
• Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4
  2867
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  2781
• Apple iPad mini 2
  2512
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  2414
• LG G Pad 7.0
  1135

Basemark OS II

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  1192
• Apple iPad mini 2
  1073
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  948
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  768
• LG G Pad 7.0
  525

Basemark OS II (single-core)

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  1999
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  1911
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  1528
• LG G Pad 7.0
  1141

Basemark OS II (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  8547
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  5899
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  5149
• LG G Pad 7.0
  4873

GFXBench measures both onscreen graphics performance at the Memo Pad 7s native resolution of WXGA and offscreen at 1080p resolution. Ultimately, the low amount of RAM meant that the Memo Pad 7 was unable to perform the more graphic intensive Manhattan portion of the benchmark. The numbers of the older T-Rex test showed pretty good numbers, compared to the Memo Pad direct peers.

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  53.1
• Apple iPad mini 2
  27
• Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4
  26
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  20.5
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  12
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 8.0
  4

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  39.6
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  22.9
• Apple iPad mini 2
  21
• Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4
  17
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  13.6

Finally, web browsing performance is measured by Kraken 1.1 and BrowserMark 2.1. Both test using the latest HTML5 optimizations, with BrowserMark throwing JavaScript into the mix. Here, the Memo Pad 7 again easily outclassed its direct rivals, scoring in the middle of the pack.

Kraken 1.1

Lower is better

• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  4647
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  4927
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  6091
• LG G Pad 7.0
  14761

BrowserMark 2.1

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 (Exynos)
  1681
• Asus MeMO Pad 7 ME176C
  1250
• LG G Pad 7.0
  971
• Xiaomi Mi Pad 7.9
  952

While the Intel Atom may not be quite the benchmark topper - especially given its full-fledged Windows Tablet pedigree - it's important to note that the limited 1GB of RAM certainly had its say. GFXBench ran out of memory when performing its more advanced graphics test, while Basemark X refused to run altogether. This undoubtedly had similar effects in the compound CPU benchmarks as well.

It's safe to say that Asus didn't take full advantage of Intel's Atom chip with this particular Memo Pad 7 by limiting its available RAM. However, you shouldn't lose perspective and realize that the Asus slate is fighting in a segment of the market where its raw performance is considered impressive.

Unfortunately we aren't quite able to say the same thing about the software optimizations, which didn't quite fit the limited available RAM - the slate did show signs of stuttering on a couple of occasions and that shouldn't really be an issue with the kind of processing power available.