Microsoft Surface vs. Apple MacBook

Samuel Buchmann

29/11/2023

Translation: Patrik Stainbrook

Can Microsoft’s luxury laptop keep up with the MacBook Pro? The cross-comparison begins neck-and-neck before ending in a vulgar display of power.

The Surface Laptop Studio 2 is Microsoft’s answer to the Apple MacBook Pro – a classy and expensive high-end laptop. The Windows device contains an Intel CPU and a latest generation graphics card from Nvidia. Apple also granted its MacBook new chips a few weeks ago.

How do the two devices compare directly? I put the Surface sporting its CHF 3195 top configuration with 64 GB of RAM and a dedicated graphics card up against a MacBook Pro. My Apple test device with its M3 Pro chip and 18 GB of RAM costs only 2589 francs. That’s a whole 600 francs cheaper.

I’m aware that there are countless factors leading someone to prefer a laptop with one operating system over another. But that’s not the point here. Instead, I concentrate only on the hardware and differences there. You can find a detailed overall test of the Surface Laptop Studio 2 by our colleague Martin Jud here. Check out my test of the MacBook Pro here.

Design and manufacturing: Microsoft can keep up

The MacBook Pro’s housing, milled from a block of aluminium, is iconic. But Microsoft is catching up. The Surface Laptop Studio 2 is also made entirely of aluminium on the outside and is just as well-produced. Perfect gap dimensions, pleasant hinge resistance and magnets locking the display in various positions. Very nice!

There are only two things I prefer on the MacBook. Its outer edges are rounded, making the laptop feel comfortable when closed. I could cut vegetables with the sharp edges of the Surface. In addition, the edges around the display are quite wide, which looks less modern in direct comparison with the MacBook.

The Microsoft laptop is thicker and heavier. It weighs 1.98 kilograms with a dedicated graphics card – 370 grams more than the 1.61 kilogram MacBook Pro. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the touchscreen with its folding mechanism is thicker than Apple’s display. Secondly, the CPU and graphics card need more space and a larger cooling system.

In Apple’s system-on-a-chip (SoC), meanwhile, all components are compactly integrated into one place, leaving more space for the battery. The MacBook Pro has a capacity of 70 watt hours (Wh), while the Surface only has 58 Wh.

Features: the Surface is good, but the MacBook’s better

MacBooks used to be notorious for their lack of ports. They also made me look enviously at the Windows competition every time I had to connect an SD card via a dongle. By now things have flipped, at least with my two test devices. The MacBook is ahead in almost every respect. It comes with an HDMI port, which the Surface lacks, just like the Thunderbolt 4 port on the right side. Apple’s card slot takes normal SD cards, while the Microsoft laptop only takes MicroSD. The only advantage of the Surface is its USB-A port.

An overview of the specifications for my test devices:

I can unlock Microsoft’s laptop using facial recognition, which works very well. I sorely miss this function on the MacBook, even in the third generation of its current design. There’s enough space in the recess of the display, and Apple could adapt the necessary technology from the iPhone.

The Surface can’t keep up in terms of image quality. The MacBook has a mini LED display with over 2000 local dimming zones. As a result, it can control the lighting individually in small zones, ensuring deeper blacks. Microsoft’s IPS panel with normal backlighting is significantly worse. I notice the washed-out contrast in dark areas of the picture, especially in low ambient light. The colour space coverage also isn’t as good (see table above).

I could operate the Surface via touchscreen, but I don’t want to. The fingerprints would drive me crazy. Still, the laptop can’t be blamed for my personal neuroses. I know people who enjoy touch operation. Alternatively, the display also responds to inputs with the Surface Pen, not included in the scope of delivery.

The reliability and precision of Apple’s touchpad are unmatched. Still, the Surface comes very close. Just like the MacBook, it no longer has physical keys, but simulates haptic feedback using small motors under the touchpad. Microsoft’s keyboard offers a slightly greater travel distance and more resistance than Apple. I prefer the smooth-running keys of the MacBook, but that’s a matter of taste. The speakers on both laptops are also enjoyably satisfying. The MacBook sounds better in lower frequencies.

Performance: brute force vs. dexterity

Both devices contain upper mid-range chips. Apple’s CPU and GPU are integrated in one place. Instead of the M3 Pro, I could also configure the M3 Max in the same housing. That one offers way more power – but it’s also way more expensive. In addition, my test device only has 18 gigabytes (GB) of unified memory, which I could expand to 36 GB.

The Surface sports a whopping 64 GB of RAM, which should come of use in some tests. In terms of graphics cards, both an integrated Intel Iris Xe and a dedicated Nvidia RTX 4060 laptop are installed in my build. Other laptops have even more powerful GPUs, costing correspondingly more. Same goes for the CPU, an Intel Core i7-13700H. It’s from the latest generation, but that also contains the Core i9 and the AMD Ryzen 9.

Within their respective system universes, I’d classify the overall configuration of the Surface as roughly identical to Apple’s M3 Pro.

Benchmarks: head to head

Synthetic benchmarks provide an initial indication of the CPU and GPU performance, even if they’re usually better optimised for either Mac or Windows. I therefore use different tests. The Windows laptop is always set to Best performance. The first graphs show the relative average scores. If you click further, you’ll be taken to individual benchmarks.

The CPU of the M3 Pro is faster than the Intel Core i7-13700H. As long as the Surface Laptop Studio 2 is connected to a power supply, it only lags by eleven per cent; in battery mode, this increases to 21 per cent. The performance of the MacBook remains the same, even without a power supply. The lower score of the Core i7 is partly due to the longer benchmarks, i.e. Cinebench R24 and the 10-minute Cinebench R23. In these cases, the processor gets too hot and has to clock down.

The Surface’s GPU also throttles in battery mode. Compared to the MacBook Pro, however, it’s still 22 per cent faster. Connected to a power cable, this jumps to 35 per cent. These results should be treated with more caution than the CPU ones. The graphics units are optimised for different programming interfaces. And unfortunately, few, if any, benchmarks that offer the best interface for both systems exist.

The new Cinebench R24 GPU benchmark makes use of ray tracing. While Nvidia has supported this for a long time, Apple is offering it for the first time with the new M3 GPUs. Previous generation chips would fall significantly further behind the RTX 4060. Even so, Nvidia’s graphics card takes the lead.

Overall, the two devices are roughly on par in synthetic benchmarks. While the MacBook has the faster CPU, the Surface wins in terms of graphics performance. However, it has no more room for improvement, whereas I can configure the M3 Max at Apple for an extra charge. Although the MacBook Pro costs over 4,000 francs, it completely outperforms in all benchmarks.

In practice: optimisation is everything

In practical applications, the gulf increases massively in some cases, even with the M3 Pro chip. Exporting my eleven-minute test project to DaVinci Resolve Studio takes less than half as long with the MacBook Pro as with the Surface Laptop Studio 2. Apple’s dedicated Media Engine does a great job.

A similar gap can be seen when exporting 200 RAW images to Lightroom. Here, the M3 Pro is 150 per cent faster. This result surprises me, as Lightroom benefits from a lot of RAM and the Apple test device only has 18 GB. The Windows laptop sports a full 64 GB. However, it appears to fail due to the overloaded cooling system. The task requires a lot of CPU power over several minutes.

If graphics performance is required, the Nvidia GPU is ahead in most cases. AI-supported noise reduction in Lightroom works 55 per cent faster with the Surface, while GPU-based rendering in Blender takes half as long. On the one hand, this is down to the presumably stronger performance of the RTX 4060. On the other hand, Blender’s OptiX interface is probably better optimised for Nvidia graphics cards than the program’s relatively new Metal support.

And games? A comparison is particularly difficult here, as there are hardly any games that run natively on Apple’s M chips. No Man’s Sky does, despite still not offering a standardised benchmark. I therefore manually play the same scene on both laptops with the same graphics settings and take a look at the frame rate. The results aren’t an exact science, but the MacBook Pro performs well. It’s only around 10 per cent behind the Surface Laptop Studio 2.

The gap is greater with Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Especially when the Microsoft laptop is connected to a power supply. Here, it delivers 87 per cent more fps than the MacBook. This is because the latter has to translate the game from x86 to ARM architecture via Rosetta 2. It’d need the more powerful M3 Max to beat the Surface.

Temperatures and cooling: the Surface needs a whole lot of air

The MacBook Pro stays silent and cool during everyday work. Even Lightroom seldom upsets it. The Microsoft Surface Laptop 2, on the other hand, already starts its fan when I configure it and download a few programs. It quickly becomes clear how much less efficient its x86 chips are. They run hotter and need more cooling as a result. Even during office tasks, the palm rest becomes noticeably warm.

Microsoft installs ventilation slots on the side of the laptop. Working with an external mouse, the device blows hot air at my hand, as you can see in this thermal image. On the MacBook, ventilation is located at the back and is less annoying when active. What’s more, this happens less often and is never as loud as with the Surface. The following video featuring a sensitive microphone shows the different noise levels under full load.

Battery life: Apple’s display of power

This brings me to the section that Windows fans might want to avoid: battery life. We know where the Surface’s waste heat comes from – a greater power draw. The Windows laptop eats through its battery like Bugs Bunny through a carrot. YouTube in 1440p at medium display brightness lasts only 8 hours, even with energy-saving mode and a 60-Hertz frame rate.

Apple’s M3 Pro SoC, on the other hand, is a miracle of efficiency. The 14-inch MacBook Pro manages a mind-blowing 25 hours in the same scenario. Over 200 per cent more, although the battery only has 20 per cent more capacity.

The Windows laptop looks even worse under load. For my MacBook reviews, I export my video in DaVinci five times and see what battery percentage remains. I have to adapt my methodology for the Surface – it’s already at just 15 per cent after two exports. The MacBook still has 91 per cent after the same task, also thanks to the efficient Media Engine.

A test in the other direction shows the extent of this humiliation even more clearly. The Surface can export 2293 images in Lightroom on one charge before it shuts down. The MacBook only gives up after 14,577 images. That’s over 500 per cent more. Five hundred!

Only when gaming at full screen brightness do I find an application that brings the MacBook to its knees faster. After 93 minutes of No Man’s Sky, the battery is drained. The Surface manages just under half that. Note, it significantly reduces frame rates during the last 20 per cent without me being able to do anything about it.

Verdict: an almost unattainable achievement

On the outside, the Microsoft Surface Laptop Studio 2 keeps up with Apple’s MacBook Pro. Both devices feel just as high-quality. The differences in features are also a matter of taste. The Surface has a touchscreen with a clever folding mechanism, while the MacBook has a better display. I also think Apple’s keyboard, touchpad and speakers are all more sophisticated, but it’s only a tiny lead. The difference in weight is bigger – 370 grams less for the MacBook.

Inside, the Microsoft laptop is like a muscle car with a wasteful engine and small fuel tank. The x86 chips from Intel and Nvidia keep up with Apple’s M3 Pro in terms of performance – the CPU is slower, the GPU faster. But the Surface requires much, much more energy and has a smaller battery despite its larger housing. The logical result: in terms of runtime, the MacBook Pro not only leaves its Windows competition far behind, it outperforms it several times over and crushes it in the process. Whether it’s for light tasks or under load.

Due to the inefficient chip architecture, the Surface Laptop Studio 2 cooling has to work hard to prevent the processor and graphics card from overheating. The laptop’s form factor probably wouldn’t be able to cope with even more powerful components. The MacBook Pro is different. It remains mostly silent and can also be configured with an M3 Max chip. Although the Apple device costs over 4,000 Swiss francs, it’s definitely ahead of the Surface in terms of performance.

This comparison isn’t perfect, and there are other Windows laptops that offer more power. But they’re bigger and all suffer from the same energy problem. Only Apple currently manages the trinity of compact size, high performance and outstanding battery life. The MacBook Pro defines what a high-end laptop can be and sets the bar for the competition at an almost unattainable height.

Samuel Buchmann

Senior Editor

Samuel.Buchmann@digitecgalaxus.ch

My fingerprint often changes so drastically that my MacBook doesn't recognise it anymore. The reason? If I'm not clinging to a monitor or camera, I'm probably clinging to a rockface by the tips of my fingers.

These articles might also interest you