Microsoft Surface Studio 2+ Review Par II:It Owns Both Merits and Faults中文

2023-03-07 11:07:11 | Source:song1118FairReviews | Writer:song1118
In view of the current situation, I have decided to write a rich review of Microsoft Surface Studio 2+ with more than a hundred pictures and a full set of data based on my all-around tests.


Chinese to English: Xin Wang


This is the second part of "The Most Comprehensive Review of Microsoft Surface Studio 2+", with more than 6,500 words and 50 pictures. The Chinese version was first published on FairReviews’ Chinese website (https://www.song1118.com). The whole review is divided into the following parts:


Part I: Let Me Take on the Task Now That Foreign Reviewers Cannot Do It!

Review: Let me take on the task now that foreign reviewers cannot do it!

Purchase: It is really a good deal from goofish.com with fast delivery!

Unboxing: I enjoy unpacking the nicely boxed laptop so much!

Appearance: "Zero Gravity" hinge is inherited from its two predecessors.

Accessories: They are with good workmanship yet Dial is absent regretfully.

Booting: The operating system will be left until later.

Guess: How will it fare in the coming comprehensive tests?


Part II: Coming from Thoughtful Design, It Owns Both Merits and Faults.

Entire laptop: It owns the impressive DNA of Surface family though without big upgrades.

System: Needless to say indeed as it is Microsoft’s own product with proven competence.

Display: It is pretty good and accurate still with some weaknesses inevitably.

Keyboard and mouse: They are fashionable and exquisite yet a little bit uncomfortable.

Dial: It possesses advanced concept yet with many limits as well as a high price.

CPU: Its performance is not good enough fortunately it’s able to maintain stability.

GPU: It can be counted as a fairly good choice with reasonable performance.

Memory: The fully soldered low-power RAM is not replaceable or upgradable.

Storage: The only regret lies in the single storage drive and it’s better to add a SSD slot.

Overall performance: It fares better than its peers and deserves to be in the leading group.


Part III: 

Please wait for update

 Now, let’s get started with the second part of the review.


Entire laptop: It owns the impressive DNA of Surface family though without big upgrades.


This model is named Surface Studio 2+ rather than Surface Studio 3. The prudent '2+' (also called 2Plus) naming drops a heavy hint of Microsoft’s weak confidence in this upgrade.

 Compared with that of DELL P4317Q display (43-inch, 16:9 aspect ratio) and EIZO EV2730Q display (26.5-inch, 1:1 aspect ratio) , the physical area of Surface Studio 2+ display ranks second either by calculation or by sight. It’s only 45.80% of P4317Q yet larger than EV2730Q by nearly 70cm2.

Surface Studio 2+’s display is with 4500x3000 resolution. Its dot pitch is only 0.1315 offering more accuracy, which outshines the other two displays’ 0.2479. Nevertheless, it cannot rival the 16-inch 3840x2400 resolution display of ThinkPad P16 Gen 1.



There's only one configuration of the Surface Studio 2+ (it will be abbreviated as SFS2+ hereafter) currently, that is, all models are equipped as follows:

CPU: intel Core i7-11370H

SFS2+ chose 11th-generation CPU at the very point when 13th-generation CPUs were already around the corner which 12th-generation CPUs would gradually give way to. This might have disappointed most of its users, I reckon.

GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop-6GB GDDR6

It’s of average standard. RTXA5500-16GB will be more satisfying to me.

Memory: 32GB-DDR

It’s a reasonable choice. If there is a 64GB option, all the better.

Storage: 1TB SSD

It’s fine. Users can make upgrades by themselves.

As per the official tech specs shown below, the maximum weight of SFS2+ is 21lb. Please be noted: it’s “maximum weight” rather than the commonly used term “minimum weight” or “staring at 21lb”. What does it suggest? It indicates that there is little hardware expansion its users can make except through external interface. In another word, on this point, Microsoft failed to take into consideration its users’ need to update hardware by themselves.



SFS2+ is almost with the same shape and size as its two predecessors. Only the color of its chassis is fine-tuned. The officially-matched keyboard and mouse go tone-on-tone with SFS2+’s chassis.




When Surface mouse, Surface keyboard and Surface Dial are placed together, you will find the difference in shade. Meanwhile, you may find the keyboard can stand steadily since the mouse and the Dial are nearly as tall as SFS2+’s base (see picture below). It shows how thoughtful Microsoft’s design is even in such trivial details, which is worthy of praise.



The design of SFS is centered on two points. One is the 28-inch 4500x3000 resolution touch screen, which will be discussed in detail later. The other is the Zero Gravity Hinge which has won high praise from me in the previous part. It enables its user to transform SFS from Desktop Mode to Studio Mode merely with one hand and maintains its position steady at any angle set by the user.


Indeed, apart from Zero Gravity Hinge, there are butterfly-array of plates inside the screen which serve to provide stiffening for the screen and transfer the force on the screen to the hinge evenly. Even when the user concentrating on creation leans on the screen unconsciously, the screen still feels solid without wobbling, thanks to these plates. 


System: Needless to say indeed as it is Microsoft’s own product with proven competence.


This SFS2+ is provided for individual consumer. It’s with licensed Office Home and Student 2021 pre-installed. In the Programs and Features interface, there are simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese and English versions of Microsoft 365 Apps for enterprise shown on the list along with other 9 pre-installed programs. That is, only 12 programs have been pre-installed in this SFS2+.


Unlike most manufacturers, Microsoft pre-install the more expensive Windows 11 Pro in SFS2+ rather than the commonly chosen Windows 11 Home edition or the Chinese version. After all, Windows 11 is Microsoft's own product and there is little increase in the cost of replacing Windows 11 Home with Windows 11 Pro.



In the Device Manager interface, you will find lots of Surface System Management devices whose names imply that their roles are to manage CPU, GPU, display, thermal monitor and policy, etc.

Under Sensors node, there is Surface Virtual Power Meter;

Under Firmware node, there are a bunch of devices whose names start with Surface;

Under Human Interface Devices node, sitting even more devices having the prefix Surface.



After SFS2+ entered the pre-installed operating system, I did not connect to the internet or make any update. I just let LatencyMon run to test the driver latency at idle. More than 30 minutes later, the bars still stayed green. That proves the pre-installed drivers, software and hardware of SFS2+ are pretty good. After all, SFS2+’s hardware, software and operating program all come from Microsoft itself. If this cannot be done well, Apple, which has always been sticking to this strategy, won’t be the largest IT company today by market capitalization.


Display: It is pretty good and accurate still with some weaknesses inevitably.


What prompted me to buy a SFS2+? Actually, the biggest reason lies in the display.

In the official Tech Specs, the display of SFS2+ is described as follows:

Touch: 10-point multi-touch;

1 billion colors;

Contrast ratio 1200:1;

Brightness: 500 nits (typical), 12 nits (minimum);

Dolby Vision® support



With the aid of AIDA64 and HWiNFO64, I get the following information of the display:

Model: BOE0AA4

Name: Surface Calibrated Panel

Manufacturer: BOE NJ

Manufacturer Time: Week 32 / 2021

Color Depth: 10-bit color depth

Color Profile: sRGB and Vivid (The Windows HD Color settings interface has verified the display is without HDR support)

Refresh Rate: 60Hz only



I visited panelook.com — an authority site of the display field, and searched for BOE0AA4, yet in vain. Then I tried searching for 4500x3000 resolution displays and found LQ282D1JC01 (also called SHP1498) CELL from Sharp, with 28.2-inch diagonal size. However, it’s not a finished display since it’s with neither backlight nor touch panel function. Based on this, I gather that BOE bought LQ282D1JC01 CELL from Sharp, then added backlight and touch screen function, finally covered Gorilla Glass, which gave birth to the 28-inch BOE0AA4 applied on SFS2+. As far as I know, no finished SFS display can be found separately in the market. Does Microsoft exert strict control over this? Or is it because the output of this niche display is too small to flow out?



In the officially preset sRGB mode, I measured with Spyder X Elite calibrator. Below is the result:


1. 96% sRGB

  It’s fairly good.

2. 71% AdobeRGB;

74% DCI-P3

They are less competent for content creation.

3. 67% NTSC



Brightness and Contrast

According to my test, the maximum Brightness was 469.5 nits, lower than 500 nits Microsoft officially claimed; while the minimum Brightness was 11 nits which accorded closely with official data.

With the Brightness set to 100%, Contrast ratio reached up to 1300:1, higher than the figure in official data; with the Brightness setting pulled all the way down to 0%, Contrast ratio was no less than 410:1, that’s really an excellent performance.

The value of White Point was between 6300 and 6700.

Besides, I found there was barely any difference between sRGB and Vivid modes of this SFS2+ since they almost shared the same values in terms of Brightness, Contrast and White Point.


Tone Response:

The Tone Response curves of sRGB and Vivid modes were nearly the same. The Gamma 2.1 offset of both was 0.01. It’s virtually perfect.

But there was a slight difference in Gray Ramp performance between them, with a fluctuation from 6402K to 6452K in colour temperature when curving between 20% and 80% for sRGB input while from 6400K to 6500K for Vivid input.


Screen Uniformity:

Color Uniformity:

The highest Delta E value was 3.4 with Brightness set to 67%. By and large, the color uniformity of this display was pretty good.



Luminance Uniformity for Brightness:

With Brightness set to 50%, luminance offset went all the way up to 16%. Overall, this display fared averagely on Luminance Uniformity for Brightness. The values shown below indicated the luminance was slightly low towards the four corners of the panel, especially at the top left corner and the top right corner.



Color Accuracy:

As per the test result, the maximum Delta E value was 4.91 which appeared in 1F shade. The minimum Delta E was 0.06 in 1B shade. And the average value came in at 1.01, far way lower than 3. Thus it can be seen the color accuracy of this display was superb.



Display Rating:

Based on the criterion of Spyder X Elite, my overall rating on the display (on a scale of 1 to 5 stars) is as follows:

Gamut and Contrast: 5 stars;

Tone Response, Color Uniformity and Color Accuracy: 4.5 stars;

White Points: 3.5 stars;

Luminance Uniformity for Brightness: 2.5 stars

It finally gained 4 stars on account of the low score on Luminance Uniformity for Brightness.


SFS2+’s display is with 3:2 aspect ratio, 4500x3000 resolution and ultra-high 13,500,000 pixels. With a 28-inch panel and a 0.1315 (192PPI) dot pitch, it ensures accurate colors and true-to-life images.

According to my test, the maximum Brightness of SFS2+’s display was close to 500 nits and the Contrast ratio over 1200:1.

As for Color Accuracy, SFS2+ also performed pretty well since the average value of Delta E was merely 1.01.


However, based on my tests so far, the display has the following shortcomings:

1. Color Temperature is between 6300K and 3700K according to the test result, somewhat cooler than its predecessor.

2. Luminance Uniformity for Brightness is flawed as the luminance is slightly low towards the four corners of the panel, particularly the top left and right corners. But it’s very difficult indeed for such a large panel to have a stellar performance.

3. The biggest problem lies in Gamut as the 71% Adobe RGB and the 74% DCI-P3 are really unacceptable for some content creation.


To sum up, despite the above shortcomings, its inherent advantages along with its 4,096 pressure point Surface Pen and Surface Dial accessories as well as its Zero Gravity Hinge design, enables it to transform from Desktop Mode to Studio Mode (also called drafting-board mode) instantly and conveniently, so I think it’s really a good display (laptop) for designers (artists).


Keyboard and mouse: They are fashionable and exquisite yet a little bit uncomfortable.

The keyboard and the mouse coming with SFS2+ are both connected via Bluetooth. I used them for ten days when testing SFS2+. My rating is as follows:

1. They’re fashionable, with good workmanship and normal function;

2. They’re not comfortable enough;

3. The Bluetooth connection results in high latency, markedly higher than that of TEX Shinobithe — a classic seven-row mechanical keyboard connected via Bluetooth likewise.


In the later stage of the test, I simply switched to IBM RT3200 keyboard connected with PS/2 to USB adapter, which gave me more comfort.


Dial: It possesses advanced concept yet with many limits as well as a high price.


I bought a Surface Dial separately from JD.COM at the request of some readers.



Surface Dial is powered by two AAA batteries which also function as additional weight needed. The bottom lid is magnetically attached to the battery compartment 


Surface Dial and SFS2+ are also connected via Bluetooth. With a simple test, I found there seemed to be only three gestures to operate Surface Dial in desktop and common programs:

Press and hold: to see a radial menu

Rotate: to select tools or shortcuts on the menu

Click: to confirm the selection

These three gestures can be regarded as right mouse button, move and scroll, as well as left mouse button.



Surface Dial supports on-screen interaction. Place it on the screen which supports haptic feedback, and you will find it’s more intuitive to use it. For instance, you can conveniently tweak colors in the programs with Surface Dial support.

Microsoft’s official account of Surface Dial is as follows:

Conveniently access to shortcuts, controllers, drawing tools and other options;

Adjust the volume on your favorite Spotify, Groove and Pandora tracks;

Scroll through news articles on your favorite news sites;

Edit, rotate and handle your creations merely with a gentle turn.

It seems to me that among the above functions, only the first one is outstanding and it’s really intuitive to use the Dial in the apps supporting it.



To conclude, the official description below has been verified by my test:

Press and hold: For menu

Rotate: Freely/continuously (both directions)

Click: Activates a momentary switch with 300g force; Rotate detection functional in up and down button positions

Dynamic feedback: Provides tactile feedback in software adjustable increments

On-screen detection: Touch digitizer reports the onscreen location through a capacitive pattern (Studio only)

Thus, Surface Dial is designed with advanced concepts yet with some limits as it needs the support of touchpad and certain programs, and some of its functions are applicable to SFS only.

In addition, it’s rather expensive with a price close to RMB1,000 in Microsoft’s official store, and still cost me RMB629 even if I bought it from JD.com.



CPU: Its performance is not good enough fortunately it’s able to maintain stability.


Now, it’s time to discuss SFS2+’s CPU which might have disappointed most readers as  SFS2+ is equipped with merely one model of CPU, namely Intel Core i-11370H. It’s installed on the motherboard with the BGA1449 socket and common users can’t replace it with another one.


Why did Mircrosoft choose such a backward CPU?


Why is the SFS2+ launched in the second half of 2022 powered with a 2021 model CPU? Indeed, on this score, there are various rumors. One of them goes like this: due to the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic, Microsoft's original plan to release SFS2+ in 2021 was forced to postpone for a full year.

Oh, pooh! If I were the product manager of SFS2+ at Microsoft, the IT giant, as long as I did not get lower respiratory tract infection, I would definitely have barged into the Microsoft global president's office and shouted, “Why do you use a 12th generation CPU on Surface Studio? Do you have a sworn feud with COVID-19?” even if I were suffering from a fever of 42 degrees Celsius.

That’s true. Is there any other manufacturer who did not release new models with intel 12th generation processors due to COVID-19? Without doubt, the upgrade of the CPU from the 11th generation to the 12th generation also involves a corresponding upgrade of motherboard memory, but these are by no means a problem for Microsoft as a big tech.

However, given the fact that Microsoft ever resolutely pulled down a new model just three days after its launch, I should be grateful that SFS2+ was not abandoned directly but "smoothly" launched with a delay of one year.


Theoretical data


Intel Core i7-11370H is with 4 cores and 8 threads, 35W TDP, Iris Xe integrated graphics card, 4.8GHz maximum operating frequency, and 12MB L3 cache. Below is the detail information shown by AIDA64 and HWiNFO64.

AIDA64 indicates the i7-11370H’s PL1 is 45 watts for 28 seconds (unlocked), its PL2 is 64 watts for 2.44 milliseconds (unlocked), and its TDP 35 watts while HWiNFO64 shows its PL1 is 55 watts, its PL2 is 64 watts, and its TDP 35 watts. The difference between the two sets of data seemingly lies in the PL1 values, and it remains to be tested later on.



The overall performance of Intel Core i7-11370H sits at No. 200 currently on the NBC (including desktops, laptops and mobile phones) CPU rankings. By comparison,  i9-11980HK, the top model of the same generation, is ranked 77th while i9-13980HX, the current top model of the 13th generation, ranks 10th. It can be seen that since i7-11370H is with 35 watts standard TDP, it’s no match for the i5-11260H, i7-10850H and i5-10500H with 45 watts TDP. With the No. 200 ranking, i7-11370H stands just between i7-1195G7 and i5-1250P both of which are with 28 watts TDP. In other words, under normal circumstances, the overall performance of i7-11370H will be neck-and-neck with that of these two CPUs. (translator’s note: the data mentioned is based on the ranking at the time of writing)



Cinebench R15/R20/R23


The results of Cinebench R15, R20 and R23 benchmark performance tests are as follows:

In the R15 benchmark, its multi-core and single-core scores were 1025 and 228 respectively. Compared with the scores (1810/251) of the i7-1260P in the DELL Precision 3470 I tested previously, i7-11370’s single-core score was slightly lower by about 10%, yet its multi-core score was lower strikingly by around 77%. The reason is that the i7-1260P is with 12 cores (4 large cores + 8 small cores) and 16 threads, while the i7-11370H is with 4 cores and 8 threads.

In the R20 benchmark, it hit 2606 and 600 respectively while the i7-1260P scored 4609/677.

In the R23 benchmark, it gained 6717 and 1571 respectively while the i7-1260P got 12173/1779.


Comparing the above scores with those of other CPUs I tested previously, I get the results shown below:



It can be seen:

Only the single-core score of the i7-11370H in this SFS2+ was higher than that of the intel Xeon W-10885M in HP ZBook Fury 17G7 and the intel Core i-11950H in the ThinkPad P15v Gen 2. Yet in other aspects, the i7-11370H didn’t stack up against any of these Intel 10th, 11th and 12th generations mobile processors.


3DMark CPU Profile


The 3DMark CPU Profile test yielded the following results:

The Max-threads score: 3895

The 16-threads score: 3886

The 8-threads score: 3852 — it’s roughly the same as the 16 threads score since i7-11370H has 8 threads only.

The 1-thread score: 949



Compared with those of other model processors I tested previously, the i7-11370H’s 1-thread test score of 949, to my surprise, ranked the top.

Yet in terms of other points, the i7-11370H was obviously beaten by the i7-11800H in Mechrevo Code 10, and lagged even far way behind the i7-11800H in ThinkPad P17 Gen 2.

On the whole, the i7-11370H performed much better than the i5-1135G7 in ThinkPad P15s Gen 2 ( also called “P15s 2021” in China), and left the i3-1115G4 in ThinkPad X13 Gen 2 (also called “X13 2021” in China) in the dust.



Cinebench R15 Multi Loop


In Cinebench R15 Multi Loop benchmark (50 runs), which aims to test the processor’s ability to maintain its performance in longtime heavy workloads, the scores of the i7-11370H are as follows:

Highest: 1043.16, in the 1st run

Lowest: 940.87, in the 49th run

Average: 961.16



In the above comparison chart, the score of the i7-11370H in SFS2+ shown with the white curve dropped close to 970 after the first peak, and remained stable until the end with tiny fluctuations.

The green curve stood for the i7-11800H in Mechrevo Code 10 (as a compared model) which performed much better than the i7-11370H, and the fluctuation was a bit larger than that of i7-11370H.

The orange curve represented another compared model — the i7-1260P in DELL Precision 3470 which I tested not long ago. It can been seen this curve fluctuated wildly.

From this comparison, we can see that the CPU performance of SFS2+ was relatively stable under long-running high load. Did SFS2+ achieve such a performance by restraining the power consumption of the CPU and ensuring appropriate CPU temperature under long-running heavy load? This will be discussed later in the stress test section.

GPU: It can be counted as a fairly good choice with reasonable performance.


Rare status


SFS2+ is equipped with dual graphics cards, the integrated graphics card is Intel Iris Xe, and the discrete graphics card is NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop (laptop version). Checked with device manager and GPU-Z, everything seems to be normal, and the dual graphics cards sit there. However, it’s apparently different from the common dual-graphics card models. By default, it’s not set to use just the discrete graphics card (the setting interface cannot be found indeed), but it appears that only the discrete graphics card is in service as shown in the NVIDIA control panel. Moreover, it can be seen from the above picture the RTX 3060 has two output ports totally one of which has been connected to the monitor of the laptop, namely the 28-inch 4500x3000 resolution screen of the SFS2+.



What on earth is going on there? 

I have no idea right now. And I will analyze and and test later, so let’s just skip it for the time being.

It can be seen in the picture above, the Total Graphics Power (TGP) of the RTX 3060lp graphics card in SFS2+ is only 115 watts, the bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x 4, the memory type GDDR6-6GB, the memory speed 14Gbps, the memory interface width 192 bits, and the memory bandwidth 336.05GBps.

Therefore, compared with the GTX965 and the GTX1070 used by SFS2+’s predecessors,  the RTX 3060lp does make me feel joyful with its relatively huge leap. Yet how will it fare? Let’s see my tests below.




In 3DMark benchmark test, the scores RTX 3060 gained are as follows:

Time Spy Extreme Graphics: 3840

Time Spy Graphics: 8143

Fire Strike Ultra Graphics: 4739

Fire Strike Graphics: 17391

Comparing this with those of other GPUs in the laptops I tested previously, I get the result shown in the picture below:



Taking the total score of the above four scores of SFS2+ as the baseline, I made a comparison. The result is as follows:

The 2020 model 16-inch Lenovo Legion Y7000P 2020 (i7-10750H+RTX 2060): 84.74%

The 2021 model 16-inch Lenovo Legion R9000P 2021H (R7-5800H+RTX 3070: 148.57% The 2022 model 16-inch ThinkPad P16G1 (i9-12900HX+RTX A5500): 141.37%

The 2022 model 14-inch DELL Precision 3470 (i7-1260P+Intel Iris Xe+T550): 29.64%

The 2021 model 15-inch ThinkPad P15v Gen 2 (i9-11950H+UHD+RTX A2000): 62.47% The 2021 model 15-inch HP ZBook Power G8 (i9-11950H+UHD+RTX A2000): 52.50%

It can be seen that the RTX 3060lp in SFS2+ still has good combat effectiveness by virtue of a 115 watt TGP, yet it undoubtedly couldn’t stack up against the 140 watt RTX 3070 and the 130 watt RTX A5500.


Port Royal


The RTX 3060lp in SFS2+ supports ray tracing. In Port Royal test, it scored 4557. Comparing this with those of other model GPUs in the laptops I tested previously, I get the following result:


Taking the scores of SFS2+ as the basis for assessment, the result of comparison is as follows:

The 2020 model 16-inch Lenovo Legion Y7000P 2020 (i7-10750H+RTX 2060): 78.10%

All of other models pulled far ahead of SFS2+.




Below are the scores the RTX 3060lp in SFS2+ achieved in VRMark test:

Orange Room: 10652, with an average frame up to 232.21FPS

Cyan Room: 8247, with an average frame up to 179.77FPS

Blue Room: 2426, with an average frame no more than 52.88FPS which failed to reach the standard of 109.00FPS



SPECgpcViewperf 2020


Then, I ran SPECgpcViewperf 2020 v2.0, a professional graphics performance benchmark. The scores of SFS2+ and those of other compared models can be found in the picture below:


Based on the total scores of SFS2+, the scores of other compared models are as follows:

The 2022 model 14-inch DELL Precision 3470 (i7-1260P+Intel Iris Xe+T550): 60.17%

The 2021 model 15-inch ThinkPad P15v Gen 2 (i9-11950H+UHD+RTX A2000): 100.56%

The 2021 model 15-inch HP ZBook Power G8 (i9-11950H+UHD+RTX A2000): 87.24%

The 2021 model 15-inch ThinkPad P1 Gen 3 (i9-10885H+UHD+T2000): 87.92%

It can be seen that RTX 3060lp performed well in professional graphics and can rival A2000. However, please be noted what is mentioned here is just performance which doesn’t mean RTX 3060lp is on a par with professional graphics cards in terms of the quality and stability of professional graphics.


Conclusions can be drawn through the above standard and professional graphics performance tests and comparisons:

The RTX 3060lp in SFS2+ fares averagely on standard and professional graphics performances, which is basically how it’s supposed to perform as a 15W TGP GPU. Compared with the GTX 1070 and the GTX965 used by the last two generations of SFS2+ respectively, the RTX 3060lp in SFS2+ graphic has taken a huge leap in performance which is fairly good in my view.

However, as I mentioned previously, the SFS2+ should be in the state of mixed graphics cards now that it’s equipped with dual graphics cards, but NVIDIA has showed it’s in a rare discrete graphics card state. After the above tests, I still cannot figure out the reason and will continue to explore.


Memory: The fully soldered low-power RAM is not replaceable or upgradable.


The SFS2+ is equipped with soldered LPDDR4-4267 whose total capacity is 32GB. From WinPE, you will see the following 8 memory devices each of which is with a 4GB capacity.


Using AIDA64 and HWiNFO64, I get the the following information only:


Then, AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark was run and generated the results as below:

The result in the upper part was with the BIOS 13.2.143, and that in the lower part the BIOS 15.2.143. It seems that the performance was slightly reduced after the BIOS upgrade. Still, we can’t exclude the possibility that it’s caused by other measurement environment factors or errors.



The read, write and copy speeds of this SFS2+’s memory hit around 58000MB/s, 62000MB/s and 60000MB/s respectively.

According to the test result, SFS2+ was with faster write and copy speeds, compared with ThinkPad P16 Gen 1 I tested previously scoring more than 61000MB/s, 59000 MB/s and 59000 MB/s respectively with a clock speed of 3600MT/s.

The memory latency score of SFS2+ was 101 nanoseconds, lower than the 95 nanoseconds of ThinkPad P16 Gen 1.


Storage: The only regret lies in the single storage drive and it’s better to add a SSD slot.


SFS2+ has only one M.2 2280 SSD and the model of which is MZVL21T0HCLR-00BMV, namely Samsung PM9A1 1TB. I ran AS SSD Benchmark and CrystaDiskMark tests with scores shown below:


In AS SSD test, it scored 4250, and its sequential read and write speeds were 4665MB/s and 2698MB/s respectively, which indicated an average performance.

In CrystaDiskMark benchmark, it hit 4665MB/s and 2698MB/s respectively in SEQ1M Q8T1, which seemed reasonable.


In addition, compared with its predecessor, SFS2+ dropped the SD card reader behind the base and reduced the USB-A ports from 4 to 2, in exchange for 3 Thunderbolt 4 ports. In my opinion, this is a small sacrifice for a big gain, which will be discussed in detail in the expansion section of the review.


The above test results of CPU, GPU and storage of SFS2+ lead to the following conclusion:

The i7-11370H CPU in SFS2+ is not with a fairly good performance. Fortunately, it’s able to maintain stability according to the results of the preliminary tests.

The RTX 3060 GPU in SFS2+ has shown a significant improvement over the last generations and it’s still not too far behind at present even though the market will soon see a large supply of 40-series laptop version GPUs.

LPDDR4-4267 32GB memory is not bad, yet it’s not replaceable or upgradable. The performance of the storage is reasonable, but it’s a pity that SFS2+ is equipped with just one storage drive. It will be more desirable to add an M.2 A 2280 SSD slot.

Now, I’m curious as to if the i7-11370H CPU will be proved a notable weakness of SFS2+ in the overall performance test. Let’s check it out.

Overall performance: It fares better than its peers and deserves to be in the leading group.


The overall performance is the gauge of a PC’s performance. It reflects whether the three major components of the PC (CPU, GPU and storage) cooperate closely, whether the functions can be fully utilized, and whether there are any weaknesses.


PCMark 10


I benchmarked the SFS2+ with PCMark 10 with the scores below:

PCMark 10: 6242

PCMark 10 Express: 5757

PCMark 10 Extended: 7792

PCMark 10 Applications: 11236

Then, I made a comparison between the above scores and those of the compared models I tested previously. Below is the result:


Taking the total score of SFS2+ as the basis for evaluation, a comparison was made creating the following result:

The 2022 model 14-inch Dell Precision 3470 (i7-1260P+Intel Iris Xe+T550): 100.39%

The 2021 model 16-inch Mechrevo Code 10 (i-1800H+UHD): 95.29%

The 2020 model 15-inch ThinkPad P1 Gen 3 (i9-10885H+UHD+T2000): 96.92%

The 2020 model 16-inch ThinkPad P1 Gen 5 (i9-12900H+RTX5500): 125.50%


The above result demonstrates:

1. The SFS2+ was just on a par with the Mechrevo Code 10 and the Dell Precision 3470 due to its weaker CPU performance though its GPU performed much better than those of the latter two.

2. The SFS2+ was merely neck-and-neck with the ThinkPad P1 Gen 3 since its strong GPU performance was offset by the weak CPU performance.

3. The SFS2+ surely beaten by ThinkPad P1 Gen 5 as both its CPU and GPU fared worse than that of the latter.


SPECworkstation 3.10


Then the SFS2+ was benchmarked with SPECworkstation 3.10 (an industry-standard comprehensive performance benchmark) and compared with some of other models I tested previously. The scores are as follows:


Based on the total score (15.59) of SFS2+, a comparison of those models was made, from which it can be seen:

1. The SFSF2+ scored better than the 2022 model 14-inch Dell Precision 3470, the 2021 model 15-inch ThinkPad P15v Gen 2, the 2021 model 15-inch HP ZBook Power G8 as well as the 2020 model 15-inch ThinkPad P1 Gen 3.

2. The SFS2+ was outdone by the 2021 models 17-inch ThinkPad P17 Gen 2 and the 15-inch Dell Precision 756 with a gap round 32~37%.

3. The SFS2+ was handily defeated by The 2022 model 16-inch ThinkPad P16 Gen 1 with a huge gap of 84.61%.


UL Procyon


The SFS2+ was also tested with UL Procyon — the first benchmark promoted by UL bearing its name. Below is the result:

Office Productivity: 5569

Photo Editing: 6179

Video Editing: 4600


Then, the SFS2+ was compared with some of other models I tested previously. The scores are as follows:


On the basis of the total score of SFS2+ (16348), a comparison was carried out. The results illustrate:

1. The SFS2+ performed better than the 2022 model 14-inch Dell Precision 3470 and the 2021 model 16-inch Mechrevo Code 10.

2. The SFS2+ was surpassed by the 2021 model 15-inch ThinkPad P15v Gen 2 with a gap of 11.61%.

3. The SFSF2+ fell behind the 2022 model 16-inch ThinkPad P16 Gen 1 by 36.37%, which was really a wide gap.




UserBenchmark is an online freeware which can be used without registration. It includes all the test results of its users in the database of its official website and gives access to the public for search and comparison.

The best score of SFS2+ in UserBenchmark tests is:

Gaming: 78%, rated Battleship

Desktop: 91%, rated Nuclear submarine

Workstation: 69%, rated Battle cruiser


I ran UserBenchmark twice. The second test was conducted when all Windows updates and the manual installation of the latest NVIDIA GPU had finished, and it generated a better result by comparison.

There are only four test results of SFS2+ on UserBenchmark’s official website at the moment. Two of them are mine as there marks “CHN-user”, and one belongs to a US user while the other one is from a Canadian user. UserBenchmark sees only three users  testing SFS2+ three months after its launch, which proves SFS2+ is truly a niche model with a small subset of users. (translator’s note: the data mentioned is based on the record at the time of writing)


PassMark PerformanceTest


PassMark PerformanceTest is a paid software, which also offers a free trial option with a time limit. The users can choose to upload their test results to the official online database, and download the existing data for comparison.

The SFS2+ was tested twice in different operating systems, namely the original pre-installed one and the Windows 11 (English version) I installed by myself. Then the two results were compared with those of other 9 models:

The three models with the prefix "song-" were chosen from those I tested previously.

Another three models were with the same CPU and GPU as SFS2+, marked with blue background white words in the picture below.

The other three models were with the similar level of CPU as SFS2+, marked with red words in the picture below.


PassMark PerformanceTest CPU Mark was run twice to test the SFS2+, and the scores can be seen in the picture below:

The green part showed the scores SFS2+ got with the original pre-installed operating system.

The orange part represented the scores of SFS2+ with the self-installed Windows 11 (English version).


The SFS2+ turned in 13387 and 13483 respectively in the two tests. By comparison:

The SFS2+ fared better than the three models equipped with the same CPU.

The SFS2+ was beaten by i7-1195G7 and i7-11390H, especially i7-1250P with a gap up to 21210. This suggests the i7-1250P will be the best choice if SFS2+ switches to a 12th generation intel CPU.

The SFS2+ was without doubt left in the dust by the i7-11800H, the R7-5800H and the i9-12900H which were much more powerful.


PassMark PerformanceTest 2D Graphics Mark test generated the following results:


Since this test is to evaluate the 2D graphics performance, the RTX 3060lp in the SFS2+ performed excellently scoring 1054 and 1030 respectively, which was better than the three models with the same CPU and GPU. The RTX 3060lp even outshone RTX 3070lp by surprise. This may attribute to the different test time and the continuous optimization of the NVIDIA graphics driver.


Then PassMark PerformanceTest 3D Graphics Mark test was run and a comparison was made:


In 3D graphics performance tests, the SFS2+ did fairly well, hitting 11903 and 11281 respectively. Compared with the three models with the same CPU and GPU, SFS2+ was bettered solely slightly by the 15-inch ASUS TUF Dash F15 which achieved a score of 12662.


PassMark PerformanceTest Memory Mark test results can be seen in the picture below:


The SFS2+ scored 2923 and 2927 respectively. By comparison, it was surpassed merely by the 15-inch ASUS TUF Dash F15 hitting 2985 and the 16-inch ThinkPad P1 Gen 5 hitting 3389. The RAM performance of the SFS2+ was neat, relatively speaking.


Below is the PassMark PerformanceTest Disk Mark tests result:


The MZVL21T0HCLR-00BMV, namely Samsung PM9A1 1TB disk, of SFS2+ scored 27690 and 28699 respectively.

In fact, the storage drives in these 10 laptops vary widely in model and capacity, and they are indeed not comparable. Thus, the comparison result above is for reference only, yet it can still be seen that the storage performance of the SFS2+ is of an average level.


Based on the above five tests, PassMark PerformanceTest benchmark yielded the overall rating as shown in the picture below:


It can be seen the SFS2+ with the original pre-installed operating system scored 6816, and fared better than the ASUS TUF Dash F15 hitting 6754.

The SFS2+ with self-installed Windows 11 (English version) achieved a score of 6732, falling slightly behind the ASUS TUF Dash F15.

Yet with either operating system, the SFS2+ was defeated by the three higher-end models—ThinkPad P1 Gen 5, the P17 Gen 2 and the Legion R9000P 2021H, while it outdid the rest of the compared models.


Based the above overall performance tests (PCMark 10, SPECworkstation 3.10, UL Procyon, UserBenchmark and PassMark PerformanceTest) , I’ve come to the following conclusion:

1. SFS2+ has an excellent overall performance, outshining its peers with the same CPU and GPU, and can be placed in the leading group.

2. The Intel Core i7-11370H CPU can’t be counted as a significant weakness of SFS2+. Yet SFS2+ will undoubtedly possess a more desirable specification and a more outstanding performance if it switches to the 12th generation Intel Core i7-1250P.


However, the above tests are by no means the most demanding scenarios that a PC may need to cope with. And Stress Test, commonly called “Torture Test”, surely won’t be absent from the comprehensive tests. It remains to be seen if the SFS2+ will put up a good show in stress test.

Yet so far, there has been more than 6,500 words in the text along with 50 pictures.

Some readers recently wrote "complaining" there are too many pictures and words in a single article, and suggested to divide the entire review into three parts so that they will have a better reading experience and a smoother thought-process. Therefore, this part has been turned into the middle part of the complete review, and another part (the last part) has been added to the original outline。


Post your Opinion

There are 0 comments