Asus is coming strong at the professional workstation segment this year, and after spending time with their top-tier
StudioBook Pro X a few weeks ago, we’re also going to talk about the more portable Asus ProArt StudioBook Pro 17 in this article. Try to look past the confusing naming, Asus has a neck for it.
The StudioBook Pro 17 W700 is a 17-inch portable performance laptop with entry to mid-level hardware specs. Its main attributes are the slimmer and lighter form-factor, the clean design, the sturdy build quality, and a 16:10 wide-gamut display, as well as mid-tier workstation hardware with Core i7 processors, Turing Quadro graphics and CPU-attached storage.
On the other hand, this is nor as compact or as powerful as other devices in this class, like the Razer Blade Pro 17 Studio Edition or the MSI WS75, and only packs a small battery.
Down below we’ve gathered our thoughts after using the StudioBook Pro 17 for the last two weeks. Our sample is a pre-production unit, but running the latest software and drivers available as of early November 2019, so it performed similarly to those retail versions that will be available in stores by the end of the year.
Specs as reviewed – ASUS ProArt StudioBook Pro 17 W7o0
ASUS ProArt StudioBook Pro 17 W700G2T
Display 17-inch, 1920 x 1200 px IPS 60 Hz, 16:10, non-touch, matte, Hannstar 170PUW1-B00 panel
Processor Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-9750H, six-core with HyperThreading
Video Intel HD 630 + Nivida Quadro T2000 4 GB GDDR5 60W (Nvidia 440.97), with Optimus
Memory 24 GB DDR4 2666 MHz (2x DIMMs, optional ECC on Xeon versions)
Storage 2x M.2 PCI x4 slots, with CPU-attached RAID 0/1 support (1x 512 GB Intel 760P SSDPEKKW512G8 and 1x 512 GB Samsung PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ-00000)
Connectivity Wireless 6 (Intel AX200) 2×2, Bluetooth 5.0
Ports 3 x USB-A 3.1 gen2, 1x USB-C with Thunderbolt 3, HDMI 2.0, SD 4.0/UHS-II card reader, mic/headphone, Security Lock
Battery 57 Wh, 180 W charger
Size 382 mm or 15.03” (w) x 265 mm or 10.43” (d) x 28.2 – 32.1 mm or 1.11” -1.26″ (h)
Weight 5.35 lbs (2.42 kg), 1.04 lbs (.47 kg ) for charger and cables, EU version
Extras white backlit keyboard, 720p webcam, stereo speakers, finger sensor
Update: Here’s our coverage of the updated
2023 Asus ProArt StudioBook Pro 16 3D OLED series.
This is a mid-tier configuration of the ProArt StudioBook W700, but Asus offers the series in a few different options. Aside from the various amounts of storage and RAM, potential users can choose between the Xeon E-2276M or the Core i7-9750H processor, optional ECC RAM, as well as Nvidia Quadro T1000 or RTX 3000 graphics (on the StudioBook W700G3T models). All variants get the same 1920 x 1200 Px 16:10 display, 57 Wh battery, chassis, and keyboard.
That aside, Asus also offers a StudioBook H700 variant, identical to this one, but equipped with a consumer-grade RTX 2060 GPU.
You can find all about that one from our detailed review.
The laptop is also available in a more compact 15-inch variant, as the StudioBook Pro W500. I’ve added a pic of the two side by side below.
Design and construction
The ProArt StudioBook Pro series borrows some of its build characteristics from the
Asus ROG Zephyrus line-up, particularly the magnesium-made body and the slim-profile, but also part of the thermal design. That’s great news, as the ROG Zephyrus are some of the better notebooks in their class.
As a result, this laptop feels sturdy and premium. There’s very little give in the keyboard’s frame and arm-rest, and the screen feels strong as well. The aluminum cover does bend when pressed a little firmer, but I’m not seeing any ripples in the panel or other unwanted effects that might damage the display in your backpack. I’ll also add that much like most of the other current Asus notebooks, this also complies with the MIL-STD 810G standards for durability and reliability.
The design lines are much cleaner than on the ROGs here, with a clean brushed aluminum exterior and a silver interior that combines the smooth magnesium finish around the keys with a textured surface on the palm-rest. This does a good job at hiding smudges, but dirt will most likely gather quite easily between those creases, so be careful about that.
You probably noticed from the pictures that this StudioBook Pro 17 is not as compact as other ultraportable 17-inchers. It packs a 16:10 screen, thus higher than the 16:9 options on those other laptops, and the bezels around the panel are not as slim either. In fact, the higher-tier StudioBook Pro X is even more compact, but the W700 compensates with reduced weight and a slimmer profile.
The laptop feels fairly practical in everyday use. The low profile, blunt front-lip, and the ample arm-rest make it comfortable to use every day. The clickpad is a little on the small side, though, and you’ll need both hands to open and adjust the screen, as the two hinges are firm and stiff. They do allow the screen to fall back flat to 180 degrees.
I’ll also mention that the perimeter rubber foot on the bottom could have been a little grippier, and that Asus uses an always-on Power Button that can get rather annoying when watching a movie in a dark-room. The status LEDs have been at least moved beneath the touchpad, but even those are a little brighter than I’d like.
Lastly, the IO is lined around the edges, most of it being placed on the left side. The connectors are a little cramped, but usable, and you get pretty much everything you’ll want here, including Thunderbolt 3 and a fast card-reader. There’s no wired Internet on the Pro W700, but you can use the included USB-to-LAN adapter if needed.
All in all, while this StudioBook Pro 17 could be a little smaller, it is one of the most practical and nicer-looking ultraportables on the market. I appreciate that Asus didn’t skimp on the build quality or the IO, a well as the fact that they implemented a 180-degree matte screen. The cleaner design comes as a bonus, and all these compensate for the minor design and practicality nuisances mentioned above.
Keyboard and trackpad
The keyboard is another aspect that reminds me of the Zephyrus lineups, but it’s a little different. It’s a centered keyboard, thus it doesn’t get a NumPad, but the layout is otherwise pretty solid, with large and spaced-out arrow keys and an extra column of Function keys at the very right. Keep in mind that our test unit gets the UK layout, hence the shorter Enter and the smaller Shift at the left.
I also enjoyed typing on this keyboard, even more than on the StudioBook Pro X, and that’s because it’s a shorter-stroke implementation, just the kind I’m used to
from my XPS 13. I was able to type quickly and the keys are quiet and bouncy, but I still had to adapt to the shallow feedback in order to improve the typing accuracy.
Now, I might not be the ideal reference when it comes to laptop keyboards. If you’re used to this sort of softer feedback and you’re already using other portable laptops, you’ll get along great with this one. On the other hand, if you’re coming from an older laptop or a taller desktop keyboard, you’ll need more time to get used to it and might just find it too shallow at first.
This keyboard is also backlit, with bright LEDs and three intensity levels to choose from. The implementation includes a CapsLock and Mic light indicator, but it required a key-press to turn on the lights once they shut off, and I much prefer the option to activate it by placing the hands over the touchpad. This function was implemented on the ROGs, so I can’t tell for sure if it will be included with the retail StudioBooks or not.
That aside, I’ll mention that a fair bit of light creeps from under the keys, despite their low profile, and it’s visible from a normal working position. I also noticed some unevenness, with some of the LEDs being brighter than the others, but don’t forget our sample is pre-production, so hopefully, this won’t happen on the final units.
The clickpad is rather small for a laptop of this size and what we got here is probably not what you’ll get with the retail models. Those are supposed to come with a glass-clickpad that includes a secondary NumPad function, and this one felt more like plastic and lacked the NumPad. It worked OK, though, with only some occasional tracking glitches, but it rattled with taps and I also found the physical click-buttons to be clunkier than I’d want.
Nonetheless, take these findings with a grain of salt, I’m pretty sure the retail unit won’t get the same clickpad, and my experience with the clickpads on the Zephyrus lines (from whom this StudioBook is inspired) has been generally positive.
The StudioBook Pro also gets a dedicated finger-sensor, placed towards the left side of the arm-rest. It works well with Hello.
The screen is one of this laptop’s main selling points. It’s matte and uses the same 16:10 1920 x 1200 px panel we’ve previously seen on the StudioBook Pro X. It’s made by Hannstar and offers decent brightness and contrast, as well as wide-gamut color coverage and pre-calibration with a Pantone certification.
The taller 16:10 aspect ratio allows for a larger work-space and reminds me of older times when these kinds of screens were not such a rarity. It’s also a specific of these StudioBooks, as none of the competitors offer it these days. Those are, however, available with even richer and crisper UHD screens with increased brightness and HDR support, if these are features that interest you.
Anyway, here’s what we got on our sample with a Sypder4 sensor.
Panel HardwareID: Hannstar HSD1702 (170PUW1-B00);
Coverage: 100% sRGB, 83% NTSC, 85% AdobeRGB, 98% DCI P3;
Measured gamma: 2.28;
Max brightness in the middle of the screen: 298 cd/m2 on power;
Contrast at max brightness: 600:1;
White point: 6500 K;
Black on max brightness: 0.49 cd/m2;
The panel came well-calibrated out of the box, with just a slight gamma imbalance. That can be addressed with
this calibrated profile, which also leads to excellent DeltaE 2000 color uniformity.
Our sample came up a little dimmer than the same panel in the Pro X and with the same high black levels, which leads to middling contrast levels. It was also more uniform, though, with smaller brightness and luminance variations and little noticeable light bleeding, evne if the lower left corner was dimmer than the rest of the panel.
All these findings suggest a degree of randomness in panel quality that you should be aware of, so make sure to test for any issues on your unit.
I’ll also add that this is just a 60Hz panel with only average response times, so not an ideal choice for gaming.
Hardware, performance and upgrades
Our test model is a mid-tier configuration of the Asus ProArt StudioBook Pro 17 W700G2T, with the Intel Core i7-9750H processor, 24 GB of DRR4 2666 MHz RAM, two NVMe SSDs in Raid 0, as well as the Nvidia Quadro T2000 60W graphics chip.
This sample came from Asus for the purpose of this review and was running BIOS 301 and Nvidia 440.97 graphics drivers, the latest available at the time of the article.
The i7-9750H is a well-know six-core processor with Hyperthreading, while the Quadro T2000 is a base-level Quadro chip. This implementation is the full-power 60W variant, and not the so-called Max-Q version available on some of the other performance ultraportables. It’s built on the Turing architecture and gets 1024 shaders, but it lacks Tensor Cores and Ray Tracing Cores, so it’s the equivalent of a Geforce GTX 1650 consumer chip in terms of performance.
This platform can take up to 64 GB of RAM, with optional ECC memory support on the Xeon configurations. It can also take two PXIe x4 drives, and our configuration gets two 512 GB units, a fast Samsung PM981 and a mid-tier Intel 760p. They’re linked in RAID 0 though, which leads to the excellent benchmarks scores above, and which also affects some of our other test results.
The CPU and GPU are soldered on the motherboard, but the RAM and storage are accessible. For that, you’ll have to remove the back-panel, hold in place by a few Philips screws, all visible around the sides.
Of course, this laptop can easily handle everyday chores like browsing, Netflix, etc. Due to its lower-tier hardware and ultraportable form-factor, it would be seen as an all-rounder and potential buyers will want to know what to expect from it in daily use, when unplugged. Details below.
But then this is also a mobile workstation, at least to some extent in this configuration, so the next part touches on the system’s performance in taxing chores. Take our findings with a grain of salt, though, we haven’t noticed any unusual behavior, but this is still a pre-production sample.
First, we test the CPU’s performance in demanding loads by running Cinebench R15 for 10+ times in a loop, with 2-3 sec delay between each run, which simulates a 100% load on all the cores. Without any control software, we used the High-Performance mode in Windows.
Out of the box, the CPU settles for around 3.2-3.3 GHz after several Cinebench runs, scores of around 1100 points, a TDP of 54 W and temperatures of around 85-87 degrees Celsius. Asus set the Power Limit a little higher than the standard 45W TDP on this sample, and the results are a little above average for a stock implementation of this processor.
We proceeded to improve this behavior by
undervolting the CPU. Our i9-9750H ran stably at -125 mV, and that translated in speeds of around 3.5-3.6 GHz, scores of around 1200 points, a TDP of 47 W and temperatures of around 80-82 degrees. That’s a significant gain over the stock settings, but still within 5-7% of what the CPU can theoretically sustain. I found the drop in TDP a little odd, Power Limit being the clear limiting factor here, as the thermals would have clearly allowed pushing the CPU further. That leaves me confident the retail variant can perform even better in this test, with latter drivers and BIOS updates.
Our sample performed OK on battery too (details below). It only returned scores of around 900 points, and that’s because the CPU constantly dropped from its peak 45W TDP during the loops, as detailed in the log below.
Given the nature of this sample, we also stress-tested it with Prime95. You’ll notice that the CPU runs at 65W+ at the beginning, and later gradually drops to 45 W in about 15 minutes, stabilizing at this level. That’s strong performance.
The next tests put both the CPU and GPU to work at the same time.
First, we ran the less-demanding 3DMark Stress Test. This sample passes it with flying colors, which suggests constant performance over time. Undervolting does lead to slightly lower CPU/GPU temperatures, and the system remains quiet during the whole time.
Then, we moved on to our Luxmark CPU+GPU stress test. The GPU runs well at 60W TDP, with occasional drops to 55W, for the entire duration of the test. It doesn’t’ get very hot either. The CPU, on the other hand, kicks-in hard at 60+ W, but then gradually drops to 30W after about 10 minutes and stabilizes at frequencies of around 2 GHz, thus it throttles beneath its stock settings.
Unplugging the laptop while running the same test instantly causes a variation in both the CPU and GPU performance, which suggests you’ll have a hard time using this laptop on battery in demanding loads.
Finally, we ran the gruesome prime95 + Furmark test and confirmed the behavior mentioned above. While plugged in, the CPU gradually drops to 30W and the GPU runs very well at around 59W, with small variations. The CPU averages temperatures in the low-80s, while the GPU tops at about 75 degrees Celsius, with the fans spinning at around 41-42 dB at head level.
Unplugging the laptop causes variations in both the CPU and GPU, just like in the previous test.
Next, we’ve run the entire suite of tests and benchmarks, on stock settings.
3DMark 11: 13153 (Graphics – 13366, Physics – 13134);
3DMark 13 – Fire Strike: 8322 (Graphics – 9323, Physics – 15848);
3DMark 13 – Time Spy: 3805 (Graphics – 3563, CPU – 6201);
Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Medium: 1838;
GeekBench 4.4.2 64-bit: Single-Core: 5217, Multi-core: 24148;
GeekBench 5.0.1 64-bit: Single-Core: 1203, Multi-core: 6020;
CineBench R15 (best run): CPU 1203 cb, CPU Single Core 189 cb;
CineBench R20 (best run): CPU 2702 cb;
x264 HD Benchmark 4.0 32-bit: Pass 1 – 211.24 fps, Pass 2 – 74.32 fps;
x265 HD Benchmark 64-bit: 52.17 s.
Then we reran some of them on the -100 mV undervolted profile. We lowered our undervolt to -100 mV for the rest of our tests in order to prevent any sort of stability issues that won’t be acceptable on a workstation:
3DMark 11: 13121 (Graphics – 13279, Physics – 13340);
3DMark 13 – Fire Strike: 8341 (Graphics – 9322, Physics – 16765);
3DMark 13 – Time Spy: 3827 (Graphics – 3551, CPU – 6842);
Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Medium: 1837;
assMark: Rating: 6070, CPU mark: 14623, 3D Graphics Mark: 6940;
PCMark 10: 5081 (Essentials – 9331 , Productivity – 6734 , Digital Content Creation – 5667);
GeekBench 4.4.2 64-bit: Single-Core: 5389, Multi-core: 24570;
GeekBench 5.0.1 64-bit: Single-Core: 1214, Multi-core: 6159
CineBench R15 (best run): CPU 1307 cb, CPU Single Core 188 cb;
CineBench R20 (best run): CPU 2903 cb, CPU Single Core 437 cb;
x264 HD Benchmark 4.0 32-bit: Pass 1 – 212.48 fps, Pass 2 – 79.16 fps;
x265 HD Benchmark 64-bit: 47.68 s.
We also ran some Workstation related loads, most of them only on the same -100 mV undervolted settings:
Blender 2.80 – BMW Car scene- GPU Compute (CUDA): Time – 2:27.92 (UV);
Blender 2.80 – Classroom scene – CPU Compute: Time – 18:14.03 (stock), 16:20.40 (UV);
Blender 2.80 – Classroom scene – GPU Compute (CUDA): Time – 7:51.10 (stock), 7:51.68 (UV);
Luxmark 3.1 – Luxball HDR – OpenCL CPUs + GPUs score: 12884 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – 3DSMax: 92.51 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – Catia: 142.31 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – Creo: 115.12 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – Energy: 18.51 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – Maya: 105.99 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – Medical: 44.08 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – Showcase: 40.13 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – SNX: 137.39 (UV);
SPECviewerf 13 – SW: 92.8 (UV).
We finally ran a few games on this StudioBook Pro 17 W700, just to get a grip of the actual performance and CPU/GPU behavior from the logs. We only tested these titles at the screen’s native FHD+ resolution, as 4K gaming is not an option with this sort of a GPU.
Far Cry 5 (DX 11, Ultra Preset, SMAA) 53 fps
Shadow of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Highest Preset, TAA) 41 fps
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (DX 11, Ultra Preset, Hairworks On 4) 38-56 fps
Battlefield V, The Witcher 3 – recorded with Fraps/in-game FPS counter in campaign mode;
Far Cry 5, Middle Earth, Tomb Raider games – recorded with the included Benchmark utilities.
The HWinfo logs below show the CPU and GPU speeds and temperatures in Witcher 3 and Far Cry 5, both complex titles. The system performs well and nor the CPU or the GPU run very hot. Undervolting does help reduce the temperatures a fair bit.
Raising the back of the laptop 2-3 cm off the desk further helps reduce the temperatures, which suggests slightly taller feet or maybe faster-spinning fans would help improve the air intake.
None of these tweaks impact the performance in any significant way though, as that’s already excellent to begin with, at least on this mid-tier configuration. I’d reckon undervolting will have a more significant impact on the higher-tier configurations.
Finally, unplugging the laptop while running Witcher leads to the same variation in performance as in our other tests, so gaming on battery power is not an option based on our experience with this sample.
All in all this StudioBook Pro 17 W700 is a strong performer, but there is some room for improvement in the CPU department, mostly in longer combined CPU+GPU loads. Undervolting definitely helps, allowing for both improved performance and lower temperatures, and further software tweaking might also allow it to top at more than just 30W in the stressing chores, which is pretty much my single complaint when it comes to the system’s overall performance. Even so, I’m overall impressed with the amount of performance Asus is able to pack inside this ultraportable form-factor.
Of course, that’s with the laptop plugged in, as you’ve seen that the performance suffers on battery in pretty much every tested scenario, so don’t expect to run demanding chores while unplugged.
Hopefully, I’ll also get to test the Xeon/ RTX 3000 variant of this notebook in the near future, I’m curious how that higher-performance and higher-power configuration does inside this chassis.
Noise, Heat, Connectivity, speakers, and others
The StudioBook Pro gets a complex thermal module, with two fans and multiple heat-pipes and heat-plates spread over the CPU/GPU. There’s no plate on top of the VRMs at the top, which is a little surprising.
This solution is perfectly capable of taming the i7/T2000 configuration, as explained above, and I’d expect it should cope fine with the RTX 3000 models as well.
The CPU and GPU only reach average temperatures in this demanding loads, and not a lot of heat is spread onto the exterior chassis either. As mentioned earlier, though, raising the laptop from the desk does help lower those temperatures even more, so this could be a candidate for a laptop-stand or perhaps one of those cooling pads, especially if you’ll aim for the RTX 3000 configurations.
The fans runs quietly. With games and stress tests, they only ramp up to about 41-42 dB at head-level. They remain active with daily use and while they spin slowly, they still have a particular high pitch that’s easily noticeable in a quiet environment. I haven’t noticed any coil whine or electrical noise on this sample, though.
*Daily Use – streaming Netflix on EDGE for 30 minutes (fans ~ 35-38 dB)
*Load – playing Far Cry 5 for 30 minutes (fans ~ 41-42 dB)
For connectivity, the StudioBook Pro gets Intel’s latest Wifi 6 AX200 chip in a 2×2 implementation. It performed flawlessly with our setup, both near the router and at 30+ feet away, with obstacles in between. Wired Internet is not an option, but Asus includes an USB-to-Lan adapter in the pack, in case you really need this sort of connection.
A set of speakers is placed on the laptop’s bottom front edge, with averagely sized chambers. The sound comes out alright, without any distortions, average volumes (up to 75-76 dB at head level) and fair quality. It’s still rather lacking in the lows, but the bass is not awful and noticeable from around 100 Hz. You will, however, feel the vibrations into the arm-rest at volumes above 50%, and that can get annoying.
Also, make sure not to cover these speakers while using the computer on the lap, it can take a further toll on the sound quality.
Lastly, the StudioBook Pro gets an HD webcam at the top of the screen, flanked by microphones. It’s pretty much a standard laptop camera, good enough for occasional use.
Asus offers the StudioBook Pro 17 W700 with a small 57 Wh battery, and that’s perhaps this laptop’s single major culprit.
You do get Optimus and a fairly efficient implementation, but there’s just no way past the fact that the competition offers larger batteries. Peeking inside you’ll see that there’s no room for a larger battery with this design, except perhaps thicker or more denser cells.
Here’s what we got on our review unit, with the screen’s brightness set at around 120 nits (~60 brightness).
13 W (~4+ h of use) – text editing in Google Drive, Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;
10 W (~5+ h of use) – 1080p fullscreen video on Youtube in Edge, Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;
9 W (~6+ h of use) – Netflix fullscreen in Edge, Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;
18 W (~3+ h of use) – browsing in Edge, Better Performance Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;
55 W (~1 h of use) – Luxmark, Max Performance Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON.
Asus bundles the laptop with a fairly compact and light 180 W power-brick, adequately designed and sized for the hardware inside. It weighs about half a kilo, so it’s not going to add that much to the overall weight of your backpack. That’s important, as you’ll pretty much have to bring the charger along most of the time.
There’s no fast-charging as far as I can tell, and I’m not sure whether USB-C charging is supported, I don’t have the right charger around to try it out.
Price and availability
Exact pricing details for the Asus ProArt StudioBook Pro 17 W700 have not been confirmed at the time of this post. From what we’ve been told, though, the base W700G1T configuration with the Core i7 processor and Quadro T1000 graphics is expected at around 2000-2100 EUR over here, which seems rather high. You’ll find more details on such a Core i7/Quadro T1000 configurations
from this review.
Update: The StudioBook Pro 17 W700 has also been announced for the US, as the StudioBook Pro 17 W700G3T. It will be available with RTX 3000 graphics and either the Core i7-9750 (W700G3T-XH77 – MSRP of $1999) or Xeon E-2276M (W700G3T-XH99 – MSRP of $2999, but with ECC RAM and 2 TB storage).
Follow this link for more details and updated configurations/prices.
It looks to me like this StudioBook W700 might swim in unchallenged waters for a little while. There are very few other 17-inch ultraportables with workstation-grade hardware out there, and the few options that are available are top-tier configurations and target clients willing to spend north of $3500 for their laptop. Except for perhaps
the Acer ConcepD 5 Pro 17 and the RTX 3000 configuration of the MSI WS75, which we’ll talk about in future reviews.
The StudioBook Pro 17 W700 targets the mid-tier segment at around $2000 and up. That doesn’t make it affordable by any means, or even a good value buy, to be honest, since you’ll be getting the same kind of performance available from a Core i7/ GTX 1650 configuration, which are available from under $1000. You are expected to pay a hefty premium for the Quadro hardware/software certifications, of course, as well as the laptop’s design, build quality, performance and overall engineering. Prices will also most likely drop to reasonable levels in the months to come, as Asus is known to offer some of the more competitive options in each niche they compete in.
That’s why I expect a fair bit of interest around this product, especially since it’s mostly an excellent effort. It’s compact and light for a 17-inch laptop, nicely crafted, packs a fast and quiet keyboard, excellent IO and a 16:10 wide-gamut screen you’ll hardly find anywhere else at this moment. It also checks the right boxes in terms of performance, thermals, and acoustics, with the small limitations explained in this article.
It only fails at one head, and that’s battery life. Asus was only able to put a 57 Wh battery inside this thing, which is much smaller than what the average 15/17 inch performance ultraportable gets these days. They even put a 76 Wh battery inside the 15-inch StudioBook Pro W500, so they surely could have done better here. Given how this W700 was
first announced at the beginning of the year, I’m pretty sure it was based on an older design and will most likely be refreshed early into 2020.
These are just suppositions, so until that happens, I’d still keep an eye on this Asus ProArt StudioBook Pro 17 W700, it might be a good buy in its niche if you’re fine with the shorter battery life it’s only capable of.