Asus VivoBook S 14 (M3407) 14" VS Lenovo Yoga 9 2-in-1 14IMH9 14" Intel Core Ultra 7 155H 1.4GHz / 16GB RAM / 1TB SSD

In terms of footprint, these two 14-inch laptops are remarkably close — the Asus VivoBook S 14 measures 315 × 223 mm while the Lenovo Yoga 9 comes in at 316 × 220 mm, a difference that is essentially imperceptible on a desk or in a bag. The real distinction emerges in the third dimension: the Yoga 9 is 15.9 mm thick versus the VivoBook's 18 mm, making it about 11% slimmer. That gap is noticeable when sliding the machine into a sleeve or a tight bag compartment, and it contributes directly to the Yoga 9's lower overall volume — 1,105 cm³ against the VivoBook's 1,264 cm³, a ~13% more compact chassis overall.

Weight follows the same story: the Yoga 9 comes in at 1,320 g versus the VivoBook's 1,390 g. The 70 g difference is roughly the weight of a small apple — meaningful over a long commute or a full day in a backpack, though neither machine is heavy by modern ultrabook standards. Both share identical feature parity on comfort-related design traits: each has a backlit keyboard, neither employs a fanless design, and neither offers weather-sealing or a rugged build, so those axes contribute nothing to differentiation.

The Lenovo Yoga 9 holds a clear, if modest, design edge here. Its slimmer profile and slightly lower weight result in a measurably more portable package, which matters most for users who prioritize carry comfort and desk aesthetics. The VivoBook S 14 is competitive and by no means bulky, but on pure physical design metrics it cannot match the Yoga 9's compactness.

Both screens measure 14 inches diagonally and support up to four external displays, but the similarity ends there. The VivoBook S 14 ships with a 1920 × 1200 panel at 161 ppi — serviceable for everyday productivity, but noticeably soft when reading small text or viewing fine detail up close. The Yoga 9 counters with a 2880 × 1800 resolution at 323 ppi, exactly double the pixel density. At typical laptop viewing distances, that gap is plainly visible: text appears sharper, icons crisper, and photos more lifelike on the Yoga 9's display.

The refresh rate divide adds another layer. The VivoBook's 60 Hz panel is the baseline standard — adequate for static work but perceptibly less fluid when scrolling through long documents or moving windows around quickly. The Yoga 9's 120 Hz refresh rate doubles the number of frames drawn per second, resulting in smoother motion that, once experienced, makes 60 Hz feel sluggish by comparison. Pair that with the Yoga 9's touch screen support — absent entirely on the VivoBook — and the difference in interactivity is substantial, especially given its 2-in-1 form factor where touch input is a core use case. Neither display carries an anti-reflection coating, so both will struggle equally under direct lighting.

The Lenovo Yoga 9 holds a commanding advantage in this category. Its higher resolution, doubled pixel density, faster refresh rate, and touch capability collectively place it in a different class for display quality and versatility. The VivoBook S 14 offers nothing that closes that gap — users who spend significant time in front of their screen will feel the difference immediately.

Raw CPU numbers paint a nuanced picture. The VivoBook S 14 runs eight cores all clocked at a uniform 4 GHz base with a 5.2 GHz turbo, yielding strong and consistent single-core performance — the kind that matters most for everyday responsiveness, launching apps, and lightly threaded tasks. The Yoga 9 takes a hybrid approach with a mix of performance and efficiency cores running at much lower base clocks (1.4 GHz / 0.9 GHz), but spreads work across 22 threads versus the VivoBook's 16. The Yoga 9's lower turbo ceiling of 4.8 GHz also gives the VivoBook an edge in peak burst workloads. One foundational difference reinforces this: the VivoBook is built on a 4 nm process node versus the Yoga 9's 7 nm, meaning the VivoBook's chip is more modern and generally more power-efficient at equivalent performance levels.

Memory is where the gap becomes most practical. The VivoBook ships with 32 GB of DDR5 RAM — double the Yoga 9's 16 GB — making it far better suited for heavy multitasking, large browser sessions, or memory-hungry creative applications right out of the box. Both cap at 32 GB maximum, but the Yoga 9 has zero upgradeable memory slots (fully soldered), meaning its 16 GB is a permanent ceiling in practice. The VivoBook retains one slot, leaving the door open for future upgrades. GPU turbo clocks follow suit: the VivoBook's integrated GPU boosts to 2800 MHz versus 2250 MHz on the Yoga 9, suggesting stronger graphics headroom for light creative or casual gaming use.

On pure performance metrics, the Asus VivoBook S 14 holds a meaningful advantage — more RAM today, a more modern process node, higher single-core and turbo clocks, and better GPU boost speeds. The Yoga 9's higher thread count offers some compensation for sustained multithreaded loads, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support is a minor forward-looking perk, but neither factor is enough to offset the VivoBook's broader performance lead as defined by these specs alone.

PassMark scores translate the spec sheet into measured, real-world CPU performance, and the results here are unambiguous. The VivoBook S 14 posts a multi-core score of 31,104 against the Yoga 9's 24,879 — a lead of roughly 25%. In practical terms, multi-core performance governs how quickly a machine handles parallelizable workloads: compiling code, exporting video, running multiple demanding applications simultaneously, or processing large data sets. A 25% gap at this tier is substantial and consistently felt under load.

The single-core story is equally one-sided. The VivoBook scores 3,970 versus the Yoga 9's 3,468, a ~14% advantage. Single-core performance is arguably the more day-to-day relevant metric — it governs how snappy the system feels when opening applications, rendering web pages, or executing any task that cannot be easily parallelized. A lead of this magnitude means the VivoBook will feel noticeably more responsive in routine use, not just under heavy workloads.

Benchmarks confirm what the spec analysis suggested: the Asus VivoBook S 14 holds a clear and consistent CPU performance advantage over the Yoga 9 across both multi-threaded and single-threaded scenarios. For users where processing speed is a priority, the measured data leaves little room for debate.

The port selection on these two machines reflects fundamentally different design philosophies. The VivoBook S 14 leans practical: two USB 3.2 Gen 1 USB-A ports and two USB-C at the same spec, plus a dedicated HDMI output, mean most users can plug in legacy peripherals and a monitor without any adapters. The Yoga 9 takes a higher-bandwidth approach — its two Thunderbolt 4 / USB4 40Gbps ports offer vastly greater throughput, capable of driving high-resolution external displays, connecting fast external NVMe drives, or daisy-chaining docks. The trade-off is real, though: the Yoga 9 has no HDMI port at all, so connecting to a projector or an older monitor requires a dongle.

Wireless connectivity follows a similar pattern of the Yoga 9 pushing further. Both support Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.3, but the Yoga 9 additionally supports Wi-Fi 6E, which unlocks the 6 GHz band for lower interference and higher throughput on compatible routers. For users in dense environments — offices, apartment buildings — that extra band can make a tangible difference in wireless reliability and speed. The VivoBook offers no equivalent.

This category is a genuine trade-off rather than a clean win. The Yoga 9 is the stronger choice for power users who need high-speed data transfer, modern docking, and cutting-edge wireless — but its lack of a native HDMI port is a real inconvenience for anyone who regularly connects to displays or projectors. The VivoBook S 14 wins on plug-and-play versatility with its broader mix of USB-A ports and built-in HDMI. Which edge matters more depends entirely on the user's typical setup.

Battery capacity is nearly identical here: the Yoga 9 carries a 75 Wh cell versus the VivoBook's 70 Wh, a difference of just 7%. On paper, a larger battery means more energy available before needing a charge, but a 5 Wh gap is slim enough that real-world battery life will be shaped far more by each machine's display power draw, processor efficiency, and workload than by the capacity difference alone. Neither machine has a MagSafe-style connector, and both support sleep-and-charge USB ports, allowing them to charge external devices even when the lid is closed — a genuinely useful convenience feature they share equally.

Given how marginal the capacity gap is, this category is effectively a tie. The Lenovo Yoga 9 holds a nominal edge on paper with its larger cell, but the 5 Wh difference is too small to declare a meaningful advantage based on these specs alone. Users prioritizing battery longevity should weigh this data alongside each machine's display and processor characteristics covered in other groups.

Several features are shared without distinction: both laptops offer stereo speakers, a 3.5 mm audio jack, a front camera, and 3D facial recognition for login — a solid common baseline. The divergence, however, is consistent and one-directional. The Yoga 9 layers on Dolby Atmos audio processing, which applies spatial sound tuning to the speaker output — a meaningful upgrade for media consumption compared to the VivoBook's unenhanced stereo setup. It also doubles the microphone count to 2, improving voice pickup quality for calls and recordings where the VivoBook's single mic is more limited.

Security and input tell a similar story. The Yoga 9 adds a fingerprint scanner alongside the shared facial recognition, giving users a second biometric login option — useful when the camera is obstructed or in low light. More notably, it ships with a stylus included, which directly complements its touch screen and 2-in-1 form factor. For note-taking, sketching, or annotation, a bundled stylus has real everyday value. The VivoBook offers none of these extras.

The Lenovo Yoga 9 wins this category without contest. Every differentiating feature in this group — Dolby Atmos, dual microphones, fingerprint scanner, and an included stylus — belongs to the Yoga 9. The VivoBook S 14 matches it only on the basics, with nothing exclusive to offset the gap.

The integrated GPU specs reveal a clear reversal from the CPU performance picture established earlier. The Yoga 9's Arc Xe-LPG 128EU packs 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs, versus the VivoBook's Radeon 780M with 768 shaders and 48 TMUs — a roughly 33% advantage in raw graphics compute resources. For light creative work, video playback, or casual gaming, the Yoga 9's integrated GPU holds the stronger theoretical ceiling. It also supports OpenCL 3 versus the VivoBook's OpenCL 2.1, meaning better compatibility with modern GPU-accelerated compute workloads such as AI inferencing tools and certain creative applications.

The TDP figures are perhaps the most strategically revealing data points in this group. The VivoBook operates at a 45W TDP while the Yoga 9 is rated at just 28W — a 60% higher power envelope for the VivoBook. This directly explains the CPU benchmark dominance seen earlier: the VivoBook sustains higher performance by consuming significantly more power. In a laptop context, higher TDP translates to more fan activity, more heat, and faster battery drain under sustained load. The Yoga 9's leaner power budget is better suited to quiet, mobile use. The Yoga 9 also benefits from a larger 24 MB L3 cache versus the VivoBook's 16 MB, which reduces latency for frequently accessed data and partially compensates for its lower raw clock speeds.

This group exposes a fundamental trade-off between the two machines. The VivoBook S 14 prioritizes peak CPU throughput at the cost of power efficiency, while the Yoga 9 counters with a stronger integrated GPU, more modern compute support, a larger cache, and a considerably more efficient power profile. Neither holds a clean overall edge here — the right choice depends on whether the user values raw processing speed or GPU capability and thermal restraint.