We finally have the successor. After a troubled launch in late 2015 of the original Surface Book, Microsoft seemed to drag their feet when it came to updating what was one of the most interesting notebooks released in the last couple of years. The original Surface Book launched with some serious power management concerns, which were eventually sorted out, but then the company just left the model relatively untouched, except for a mid-generation update with a stronger GPU.

The wait is over though. Microsoft has released the Surface Book 2 as a worthy successor to the original, with many improvements. With the launch of the Surface Laptop earlier this year, which targets the $1000 price point, Microsoft was free to ratchet the Surface Book 2 up in performance, and price, and they’ve doubled the number of models, with both a 13.5-inch version, being the upgrade from the original, and a new 15-inch model which clearly targets the performance-starved users. For this review, Microsoft sent us the larger 15-inch model.

Both the 13.5 and 15-inch models are shipping with the latest Intel Core i7-8650U CPUs, offering four cores and eight threads, and a 4.2 GHz Turbo. RAM stays the same with either 8 or 16 GB of LPDDR3, and that’s because Intel CPUs don’t yet support LPDDR4, which is a shame. Storage is 256 GB to 1 TB of NVMe SSD. So far, we have a pretty typical notebook for late 2017. The difference with the Surface Book 2 is the GPU, which is optional on the smaller model but standard on the 15-inch version we have today. Microsoft packed as much GPU as possible into the Surface Book 2 models, with the 13.5-inch offered with an impressive GTX 1050, and the 15-inch model shipping with a GTX 1060. To put that into perspective, the 15.6-inch Dell XPS 15 offers the GTX 1050, so the smaller Surface Book 2 has as much GPU power as the Dell, which is fantastic. The larger Surface Book 2 gets the much more powerful GTX 1060, featuring twice the CUDA cores as its smaller brother, and four times the ROPs. The model numbers are similar, but the  GTX 1060 is going to offer a lot more compute.

Microsoft Surface Book 2
  13.5 No GPU 13.5 GPU 15 (Model Reviewed)
CPU Intel Core i5-7300U
Dual-Core w/Hyperthreading
2.6-3.5 GHz 3MB Cache 15W TDP
Intel Core i7-8650U
Quad-Core w/Hyperthreading
1.9-4.2 GHz 8MB Cache 15W TDP
GPU Intel HD 620 Intel HD 620 + NVIDIA GTX 1050 2GB Intel HD 620 + NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB
Storage 256 GB NVMe 256GB, 512 GB, 1TB
Display 13.5" PixelSense
3000x2000 3:2 sRGB
Touch and Pen enabled
15" PixelSense
3240x2160 3:2 sRGB
Touch and Pen enabled
Networking 802.11ac 2x2:2 866Mbps max
Bluetooth 4.1
Audio Stereo Speakers (front facing)
Dolby Audio Premium
Battery 23 Wh (Tablet) plus 46 Wh (Base) 23 Wh (Tablet) plus 52 Wh (Base) 23 Wh (Tablet) plus 63 Wh (Base)
Xbox Wireless No Yes
Right Side Surface Connect
USB Type-C 3.1 Gen 1 with USB Power Delivery
Headset Jack
Left Side 2 x USB 3.0 Type-ASD Card Reader
Dimensions 312 x 232 x 13-23mm
12.3 x 9.14 x 0.51-0.90 inches
343 x 251 x 15-23 mm
13.5 x 9.87 x 0.57-0.90 inches
Weight 1.53 kg
3.38 lbs
1.64 kg
3.62 lbs
1.90 kg
4.2 lbs
Cameras 8.0 MP Rear-facing camera with autofocus
5.0 MP front-facing camera with 1080p video
Windows Hello IR camera
Pricing $1499 $1999-$2999 $2499-$3200

After shunning the port for the last couple of years, Microsoft has finally added USB-C to the Surface Book 2, replacing the mini-DisplayPort. Their reasoning for not including it before was that USB-C is a confusing port, where they all look the same, but offer different capabilities, and that’s a fair point, but it also makes it more confusing that they didn’t include Thunderbolt 3 on the Surface Book 2, meaning the USB-C port on the Surface Book 2 doesn’t offer the full capabilities of the port. The company seems to have an aversion to making everyone happy. The USB-C port does offer DisplayPort output, as well as power delivery, but the lack of Thunderbolt 3 deprives the owner of the ability to output dual UHD video feeds, despite the performance of this machine, and that’s a shame.

The larger Surface Book 2 15 offers an impressive 85 Wh of battery capacity, and that’s due to the unique design of the Book, where the detachable tablet offers 23 Wh of capacity, and the base offers another 62 Wh. The device is designed to have the tablet attached most of the time, but with the ability to remove it for certain tasks.

This isn’t an Ultrabook though. The smaller 13.5-inch model starts at 3.38 lbs (1.5 kg) and goes up if you add a GPU, and the larger 15-inch model weighs in at 4.2 lbs (1.9 kg). This is a device designed to offer portable performance, and here the weight isn’t as much of an issue. It still comes in slightly lighter than an XPS 15, despite a GPU with double the CUDA cores.

The most interesting aspect to the Surface Book 2 continues to be the design though, so let’s start there.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • edgineer - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    >the lack of Thunderbolt 3 deprives the owner of the ability to output dual UHD video feeds

    Wait, are you sure Thunderbolt 3 is the actual reason for that? MS' support site says only one UHD@60Hz output is possible, sure.

    But when the XPS 15's only-2-PCIe-lanes brewhaha happened, reviewers explained that the DisplayPort-alternate mode bandwidth is NOT affected by Thunderbolt 3. Only eGPU capability is changed by TB3 status, and not external display capability. Or is it not?

    The only other clues I have are that MS' support says external display capability is limited by the CPU. Intel's ARK page for the 8650u lists basically the exact DP capabilities that MS gave, except that the chip should support 3 displays, and the caveat "Please check with the system vendor to determine if your system delivers this feature." This makes me think that the limitation lies with the specific (lack of) implementation of CPU capabilities, and that having the TB3 chip installed doesn't change this.
  • Reflex - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    Your analysis is correct, TB is just another alternate mode for USB-C and does not impact the number of displays supported. There is something else going on there.
  • Brett Howse - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    That's not the case at all. DisplayPort only has enough bandwidth for a single UHD feed at 60 FPS. You can't drive 2 UHD monitors on USB-C without the extra bandwidth provided by Thunderbolt 3.
  • Brett Howse - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    I guess I also need to point out USB-C video mode only supports a single DisplayPort 1.2 (usually - other specs can work on short cables) which is why you can only get 1 UHD at 60 Hz with no compression.
  • Reflex - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    Thanks for the correction I was not aware of that.
  • imaheadcase - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    For the price points they are at, i cant help but think the screen is %99 of the cost of this thing, Not he GPU
  • Galcobar - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    If power consumption is a concern, then there's a conundrum: is it better to have an older (6th or 7th gen) processor paired with DDR3L, or an 8th gen processor paired with DDR4?

    Assume same processor TDP across generations.
  • Brett Howse - Thursday, December 21, 2017 - link

    If power consumption is a concern then the best option is LPDDR3 at the moment on the PC side.
  • Galcobar - Friday, December 22, 2017 - link

    Thank you for the prompt reply.
    I've become the person in the office people consult when buying their new laptops, and I've noticed the available configurations now span the seventh and eighth gen Intel Cores. Since we don't run anything that really stresses the CPU, the extra cores of the 8th gen are interesting only if they improve efficiency. If the reduction in activity gains less battery life than the switch from LPDDR3 to DDR4 costs, I'll keep advising people to go with the 7th gen options.
  • Galcobar - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link

    Just came across - or re-discovered - the 2015 article on the 6th gen processors https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-...
    It states that DDR4 runs at 1.2V or 1.5V.
    That would make it more efficient than LPDDR3's 1.35/1.5V, would it not?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now