This is the 15-inch Asus ProArt StudioBook Pro W500G5T. That’s a mouthful for sure, for what is otherwise a premium and compact 15-inch mobile workstation with some of the best specs money can buy right now. A lot of money, for that matter, as this laptop is listed at $3800-$4000 MSRP, without considering any occasional discounts.
Specs-wise, you’re paying this kind of money for Nvidia Quadro 5000 graphics, 48 GB of RAM and 2 TB of very fast SSD RAID storage, as well as 4K 100% AdobeRGB screen. The good keyboard, well-built chassis, and hopefully the reliability and QC you’d expect from a workstation-class notebook are part of the whole package as well.
However, that’s impossible for us to tell right now, and only time and customer feedback will. The StudioBook Pro W500 is based on the
ROG Zephyrus M chassis and internal design, and that makes me feel a little more confident in this product than I would normally feel about a first-generation device. And that’s because the ProArt StudionBook lineup is a new endeavor for Asus. Nonetheless, I would advise only buying this from a reputable source and spend the extra for the best warranty package available.
Now, we’ve spent the last few weeks with this laptop and gathered our thoughts down below, with the positives and the quirks you should be aware of before spending the 4G for it.
Specs as reviewed – ASUS ProArt StudioBook Pro W500
ASUS ProArt StudioBook Pro W500G5T
Display 15.6-inch, 3840 x 2160 px IPS 60 Hz, 16:9, non-touch, matte, AU Optronics B156ZAN03.1 panel
Processor Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-9750H, six-core with HyperThreading
Video Intel HD 630 + Nvidia Quadro RTX 5000 80W 16 GB GDDR6 (Nvidia Quadro 442.92), with Optimus
Memory 32 GB DDR4 2666 MHz (16 GB soldered, 1x DIMM)
Storage 2x M.2 PCI x4 slots, with RAID 0/1 support (2x 1 TB Samsung PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR-00000)
Connectivity Gigabit LAN (Realtek RTL8168/8111), Wireless 6 (Intel AX200) 2×2, Bluetooth 5.0
Ports 3x USB-A 3.1, 1x USB-C gen 2 with DP and charging, HDMI 2.0b, LAN, headphone/mic, Kensington Lock
Battery 76 Wh, 230 W power adapter, no USB-C charging
Size 360 mm or 14.17” (w) x 252 mm or 9.92” (d) x 18.9 mm or .74” (h)
Weight 1.99 kg (4.4 lbs), .80 kg (1.76 lbs) power brick and cables, EU version
Extras white backlit keyboard, no webcam, stereo speakers
This is a highly-specced configuration of the ProArt StudioBook Pro W500, but Asus should offer the series in a few different configurations. Still, from what I’m seeing, there’s no lower-tier GPU option like on the 17-inch Studiobook Pro W700.
Update: Here’s our coverage of the updated
2023 Asus ProArt StudioBook Pro 16 3D OLED series.
Design and construction
As mentioned earlier, the ProArt StudioBook W500 is
built on a Zephyrus M15 chassis, but with a few particularities: the entire casing is dark-silver, with a magnesium-alloy interior and a brushed aluminum lid-cover, and the design is clean and simple, without any of the RGB lighting and gaming accents of the ROG lineup.
Here’s how the StudioBook Pro 15 looks right next to the
ROG Zephyrus S15, thoroughly reviewed here.
This will surely appeal to its core demographics, although I’d still prefer not having those status LEDs beneath the display, yet that’s pretty much my only complaint here.
That aside, this notebook is compact and lightweight for its class, at around 2 kg in this reviewed configuration, and sturdily built. There’s no flex or squeaking in the main-chassis and the keyboard deck, and the screen doesn’t bend much either.
The W500 is also an ergonomic notebook, with a spacious arm-rest inside, complemented by blunted edges and corners, as well as grippy rubber feet to keep this well anchored on the desk. Having a close look at this from its profile, you’ll notice that the rear rubber feet are fairly tall, and that’s meant to allow proper air-flow underneath and cool the hungry hardware inside.
As for the IO, there’s a fair selection of ports on the sides. Most of them are lined on the left, but this is one area where the StudioBook Pro comes short for a workstation: the IO is also inherited from the 2019 Zephyrus M series, which means there’s no card-reader, no Thunderbolt 3 and no USB-C charging, features even I would find useful as a merely a Youtube creator. The USB-C port supports data and video, so you can link two external monitors if you need to.
On top of these, I’ll also note that the screen still only goes back to about 145 degrees, and not all the way back flat, and there’s no included webcam with the design.
Keyboard and trackpad
Inputs are also inherited from the Zephyrus lineups, just with a dark-silver color and white-only illumination, to match the cleaner professional theme.
The illumination could be more uniform and the design still allows for light to creep from other the keycaps. In fact, the light shines annoyingly onto the bottom of the screen, around the StudioBook branding, as you can see in one of the included pictures.
On the other hand, the LEDs get bright enough and all the keys are lit properly, including the secondary functions, unlike on the similar ROG models.
I didn’t enjoy typing on this model as much as I do on Zephyrus laptops, though. The rubber domes felt different, spongier, and more inaccurate, so while this is still a very fast and mostly quiet typer (with the exception of the space key), it’s also unforgiving and will quickly penalize any straying fingers.
The layout is pretty good though. There’s no Numpad section, but you do get a useful extra right column of function keys, and some dedicated media controls in the top-left part.
The clickpad is rather small, but it’s a smooth glass surface with Precision drivers, so it feels good in everyday use. It also doesn’t rattle with taps and the physical clicks feel smooth and fairly quiet.
As for biometrics, there are none here, which for some could be a deal-breaker.
The 4K wide-gamut panel on the StudiooBook Pro 15 is pretty much a must on a workstation of this caliber in this day and age.
This implementation is matte and homogenous and doesn’t suffer from noticeable light bleeding, even if the corners are not as bright as the middle. It’s also punchy for an IPS panel, with good blacks and fair maximum brightness, as well as excellently calibrated out of the box, with a Pantone certification.
Here’s what we got in our tests,
with an X-Rite i1 Display Pro sensor:
Panel HardwareID: AU Optronics AUO31EB (B156ZAN03.1);
Coverage: 99.9% sRGB, 99.5% AdobeRGB, 87.6% DCI P3;
Measured gamma: 2.19;
Max brightness in the middle of the screen: 370 cd/m2 on power;
Contrast at max brightness: 1435:1;
White point: 6500 K;
Black on max brightness: 0.25 cd/m2;
Bottom point, this is a good-quality panel that should appeal for daily use and any sort of work that requires good color-accuracy.
However, pretty much all the other laptops in this class get at least a similar panel, with some offering an OLED 4K option. I’m not advocating for OLED panel on laptops,
for a couple of reasons, so I prefer this IPS option, but what I’m saying is that the StudioBook is merely on par with the competition in this section, and not at an advantage.
Hardware and performance
Our test model is a top-tier configuration of the Asus ProArt StudioBook 15 W500, with an Intel Core i7-9750H processor, 48 GB of DRR4 2666 MHz RAM, two NVMe SSDs in Raid 0, as well as the Nvidia Quadro RTX 5000 graphics chip, in the 80W Max-Q implementation.
This is a retail unit identical to those available in stores and came from Asus for the purpose of this review. All the tests were run on BIOS 202, Nvidia Quadro 440 graphics drivers, and the MyAsus version 2.2.17 app, the latest available at the time of the article.
Core i7-9750H is a well known six-core processor with HyperThreading, supplemented here by Quadro 5000 graphics, in the 80W Max-Q implementation. The Intel UHD iGPU within the Intel platform is also active, and Optimus allows it to take over with daily use in order to save up battery.
The platform can take up to 48 GB of DDR4 2666 MHz RAM, and that’s because 16 GB of RAM are already soldered on the motherboard, and there’s only one DIMM accessible for upgrades. However, only 32 GB are going to work in dual-channel, that’s why the 32 GB configuration that we have here is the best value in this case.
It can also take two PCIe x4 drives, and our configuration gets two 1 TB Samsung PM981 drives, among the better options out there. They’re linked in RAID 0, which makes this a very fast storage implementation and positively affects the system’s performance in certain cases, and some of our other test results.
The CPU and GPU are soldered on the motherboard, but the RAM slot and the two storage slots 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. Its portable form-factor could make it an appealing all-rounder, even if you should primarily get this for work and serious loads, which we’ll focus on next.
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. Asus offers two fan/performance modes in the MyAsus app that comes bundled with the laptop, Auto and Turbo.
The Auto profile keeps fan-noise low, but also limits the CPU at 35 W in sustained loads, which takes a toll over the performance. Turbo, on the other hand, ramps the fans and raises the limit to 70W, which translates in some of the best performance possible on an i7-9750H implementation.
Undervolting (only to -60 mV in this case, in order to prevent any stability issue) further pushes the CPU to consistent max-frequencies of 4.0 GHz in our test, but at a lower 63 W power limit.
Finally, the performance drops on battery, as in this case, the CPU fluctuates between periods of running at 52W and periods of dropping to only 5-7W. All these details are available in the following charts and logs.
I’ve also added some competing platforms above next to the i7-9750 in this StudioBook, just to see that there are significantly more powerful options out there these days.
We’ve then verified our findings with the longer Cinebench R20 loop test and the gruesome Prime 95. It’s interesting that in this case, the CPU stabilizes at 70W on the Turbo UV profile, and not at 63W as in the previous test.
Next, we ran some of our combined CPU+GPU stress tests on this notebook, on the Turbo UV profile.
3DMark stress runs the same test for 20 times in a loop and looks for performance variation and degradation over time, and this unit passed it without a problem. Luxmark 3.1 fully loads both the CPU and GPU at the same time. The GPU constantly runs at around 80W both on Auto and on Turbo, and the CPU stabilizes at 45W on Turbo, and only 25W on Auto. However, the performance drops massively on battery, with the CPU fluctuating just like in the Cinebench test, and the GPU being limited to 30W.
Next, we’ve run the entire suite of tests and benchmarks, first on the Auto profile, if you’re interested in keeping the fan-noise down.
3DMark 13 – Fire Strike: 16037 (Graphics – 18123, Physics – 16050);
Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Extreme: 4360;
Handbrake 1.3.1 (4K to 1080p encode): 31.05 average fps;
PCMark 10: 4740 (Essentials – 9244 , Productivity – 6940 , Digital Content Creation – 4507);
PassMark: Rating: 5096, CPU mark: 13873, 3D Graphics Mark: 5260, DiskMark: 31314;
GeekBench 5.0.1 64-bit: Single-Core: 1158, Multi-core: 6024;
x265 HD Benchmark 64-bit: 45.76 s.
Then we reran some of them on the Turbo stock profile.
3DMark 11: 20078 (Graphics – 24665, Physics – 13243);
3DMark 13 – Fire Strike: 16156 (Graphics – 18219, Physics – 16801);
3DMark 13 – Time Spy: 6916 (Graphics – 6968, CPU – 6641);
3DMark 13 – Port Royal: 4139;
Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Extreme: 4430;
Handbrake 1.3.1 (4K to 1080p encode): 34.3 average fps;
GeekBench 4.4.2 64-bit: Single-Core: 5262, Multi-core: 24044;
GeekBench 5.0.1 64-bit: Single-Core: 1168, Multi-core: 5991;
CineBench R15 (best run): CPU 1284 cb, CPU Single Core 181 cb;
CineBench R20 (best run): CPU 3001 cb;
x264 HD Benchmark 4.0 32-bit: Pass 1 – 216.24 fps, Pass 2 – 79.32 fps;
x265 HD Benchmark 64-bit: 47.88 s.
Finally, we earn them on the Turbo -60 mV undervolted profile. We found this to be stable througout our testing, and that’s important, as any sort of stability issues won’t be acceptable on a workstation:
3DMark 11: 20093 (Graphics – 24766, Physics – 13265);
3DMark 13 – Fire Strike: 16420 (Graphics – 18597, Physics – 16827);
3DMark 13 – Time Spy: 6884 (Graphics – 6980, CPU – 6389);
3DMark 13 – Port Royal: 4140;
Uniengine Superposition – 1080p Extreme: 4435;
Handbrake 1.3.1 (H.264 4K to 1080p encode): 34.28 average fps;
PassMark: Rating: 5690, CPU mark: 15041, 3D Graphics Mark: 13064;
PCMark 10: 4771 (Essentials – 9283 , Productivity – 6922 , Digital Content Creation – 4589);
GeekBench 4.4.2 64-bit: Single-Core: 5342, Multi-core: 24105;
GeekBench 5.0.1 64-bit: Single-Core: 1165, Multi-core: 6051;
CineBench R15 (best run): CPU 1287 cb, CPU Single Core 180 cb;
CineBench R20 (best run): CPU 3013 cb, CPU Single Core 429 cb;
x264 HD Benchmark 4.0 32-bit: Pass 1 – 214.84 fps, Pass 2 – 78.68 fps;
x265 HD Benchmark 64-bit: 45.88 s.
We also ran some Workstation related loads, on the same -60 mV undervolted Turbo profile:
Blender 2.82 – BMW Car scene- CPU Compute: 5m 41s (Auto), 4m 37s (Turbo);
Blender 2.82 – BMW Car scene- GPU Compute: 1:24 s (CUDA), 39 s (OPTIX);
Blender 2.82 – Classroom scene – CPU Compute: 18m 17s (Auto), 14m 31s (Turbo);
Blender 2.82 – Classroom scene – GPU Compute: 4m 41s (CUDA), 2m 14s (OPTIX);
Luxmark 3.1 – Luxball HDR – OpenCL CPUs + GPUs score: 21726 (Auto), 21845 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – 3DSMax: 142.85 (Auto), 149.76 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – Catia: 179.85 (Auto), 193.74 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – Creo: 170.38 (Auto), 184.31 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – Energy: 33.7 (Auto), 35.4 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – Maya: 172.4 (Auto), 178.12 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – Medical: 85.6 (Auto), 89.03 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – Showcase: 85.66 (Auto), 87.99 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – SNX: 228.82 (Auto), 224.7 (Turbo);
SPECviewerf 13 – SW: 113.49 (Auto), 122.14 (Turbo).
While the hardware seems to run well in most of these titles, I was expecting higher results in the CPU tasks and in the Specviewperf workloads. For comparison, the
Lenovo Thinkpad P53 based on a fairly similar i7 6Core CPU and 80W Quadro option scores better across the board, and so does the full-power Quadro 5000 110W in the Asus StudioBook Pro X. Furthermore, certain workloads would benefit from an i9 processor, available in some of the mobile workstations out there.
We also ran a few games on this StudioBook Pro 15 W500, just to get a grip of the actual performance and CPU/GPU behavior from the logs, as the Quadro 5000 is not a gaming chip. We’re going to compare it to the RTX 2070/2080 Super chips in a future article, if interested in how the two platforms fair in games and workloads.
FHD Auto UV
FHD Turbo UV
4K Turbo UV
Battlefield V (DX 12, Ultra Preset, Ray-Tracing OFF) 89-119 min-max fps
(97 fps avg, 70 fps – 1% low) 81-117 min-max fps
(97 fps avg, 73 fps – 1% low) 32-44 min-max fps
(36 fps avg, 31 fps – 1% low)
Battlefield V (DX 12, Ultra Preset, Ray-Tracing ON, DLSS OFF) 41-62 min-max fps
(50 fps avg, 41 fps – 1% low) 42-64 min-max fps
(52 fps avg, 43 fps – 1% low) 13-24 min-max fps
(18 fps avg, 13 fps – 1% low)
Far Cry 5 (DX 11, Ultra Preset, SMAA) 96 fps (68 fps – 1% low)
99 fps (70 fps – 1% low)
38 fps (33 fps – 1% low)
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (DX 11, Ultra Preset) 136 fps
Red Dead Redemption 2 (DX 12, Ultra Optimized, TAA) 71 fps (- fps – 1% low)
74 fps (36 fps – 1% low)
31 fps (18 fps – 1% low)
Rise of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Very High Preset, FXAA) 66 fps (40 fps – 1% low)
66 fps (42 fps – 1% low)
42 fps (29 fps – 1% low)
Shadow of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Highest Preset, TAA) 75 fps (46 fps – 1% low)
79 fps (52 fps – 1% low)
32 fps (22 fps – 1% low)
Strange Brigade (Vulkan, Ultra Preset) 126 fps (93 fps – 1% low)
130 fps (95 fps – 1% low)
53 fps (44 fps – 1% low)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (DX 11, Ultra Preset, Hairworks On 4) 66–102 min-max fps
(85 fps avg, 40 fps – 1% low) 62-114 min-max fps
(88 fps avg, 54 fps – 1% low) 28-43 min-max fps
(34 fps avg, 21 fps – 1% low)
Battlefield V, The Witcher 3 – recorded with Fraps/in-game FPS counter in campaign mode;
Far Cry 5, Middle Earth, Strange Brigade, Red Dead Redemption, Tomb Raider games – recorded with the included Benchmark utilities;
Red Dead Optimized profile based on
The HWinfo logs below show the CPU and GPU speeds and temperatures in Farcry 5 and Witcher 3 on the Turbo UV profile, ad both FHD and 4K resolutions.
Gaming on Auto UV helps lower noise levels to only about 41-42 dB at head level, with a minimal toll in performance. However, both the components and the outer case run at higher temperatures in this instance.
Raising the laptop from the desk helps lower those temperatures by a fair amount. Thus, this StudioBook is going to benefit from a laptop cooling pad, or in the scenario where it sits in a vertical stand, with external peripherals and monitors.
Finally, gaming on battery is possible, but the GPU is limited at only 30W and the CPU occasionally throttles down to .8 MHz, so don’t expect an excellent experience in recent titles.
Noise, Heat, Connectivity, speakers, and others
The StudioBook Pro 15 W500 gets a complex thermal module, with two fans and multiple heat-pipes and heat-plates spread over the CPU/GPU and VRMs.
This does a good job at keeping the CPU and GPU at bay, despite the laptop’s small form-factor and thin profile, and the component’s high-power settings.
On Turbo, which ramps the fans to about 47-48 dB with complex loads, the CPU averages 80-85 degrees and the GPU around 70-72 degrees. On Auto, the fans quiet down to 41-42 dB, and the CPU jumps to 82-87 degrees and the GPU to around 78-80 degrees. These are fairly high temperatures, but could be an option to consider when low noise is required.
The fans remain active with daily use and you’ll hear their high-pitch whistling in a quiet environment, but not in a regular work/school place. I also haven’t noticed any electrical noises or coil winning on this unit.
As for chassis thermals, the laptop gets merely warm with daily use and multitasking and jumps to acceptable mid-40s temperatures with demanding loads, on Turbo. The interior and especially the bottom get fairly toasty on Auto, though, reaching temperatures in the 50s, which one more suggests that the Auto profile is not something you should normally use on this notebook.
*Daily Use – streaming Netflix on EDGE for 30+ minutes, on Auto profile (fans ~ 33-35 dB)
*Gaming – Auto – running Far Cry 5 for 30+ minutes, on Turbo UV profile (fans ~ 41-42 dB)
*Gaming – Turbo – running Far Cry 5 for 30+ minutes, on Turbo UV profile (fans ~ 47-48 dB)
We’re using a
CAT S61 smartphone with a FLIR Pro module for our thermal readings.
For connectivity, the StudioBook Pro W500 gets Intel’s latest Wifi 6 AX200 chip in a 2×2 implementation, as well as Gigabit Lan. It performed flawlessly on wireless with our setup, both near the router and at 30+ feet away, with obstacles in between.
As far as the speakers go, there’s a set of them firing through cuts on the lateral sides of the underbelly, and they get fairly loud, but are only average in terms of quality. We measured maximum volumes of around 78-80 dB at head level, without any distortions. Make sure not to cover the speaker cuts, that can happen easily when using the computer on the lap.
Lastly, this StudioBook gets no HD webcam, just a set of microphones placed under the StudioBook logo.
Asus offers the StudioBook Pro W500 with a 76 Wh battery, just like with the Zephyrus models. It’s supplemented by Optimus, but the 4K screen takes its fair toll.
Here’s what we got on our review unit, with the screen’s brightness set at around 120 nits (~60 brightness).
22 W (~3 h 30 min of use) – text editing in Google Drive, Better Battery Mode, screen at 50%, Wi-Fi ON;
18 W (~4+ h of use) – 1080p fullscreen video on Youtube in Edge, Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;
16.5 W (~4 h 30 min of use) – Netflix fullscreen in Edge, Better Battery Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;
30 W (~2 h 30 min of use) – browsing in Edge, Better Performance Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON;
60 W (~1+ h of use) – Gaming – Witcher 3, Maximum Performance Mode, screen at 60%, Wi-Fi ON, no fps limit.
Asus bundles this configuration with a 230 W power-brick, which weighs about 760 grams, and you’ll have to bring that along all the time, since USB-C charging is not supported.
Price and availability
The ProArt StudioBook 15 mobile workstation has been available in stores for a while now, but only in a top-tier configuration that includes the i7-9750H processor, 48 GB RAM, 2 TB of SSD storage and the RTX Quadro 5000 dGPU.
That’s listed at $3999 in the US and around roughly 4500 EUR in Europe, but occasional discounts can shave a bit off that.
I’m surprised there’s no lower-tier model, though, as an RTX Quadro 3000 model for 2-2.5K would put this on a lot more maps than it does at 4K.
Follow this link for more details and updated configurations/prices.
Wrapping this up, the StudioBook Pro 15 is not for everyone, especially in this sort of top-tier configuration. It’s not a best-value allrounder and it’s definitely not something you should get for gaming.
Instead, it’s a top-tier Quadro laptop with a wide-gamut 4K display, and that makes it viable for engineering, architecture, rendering, and modeling work.
That Quadro 5000 chip, with all the associated drivers, certifications and software tweaks that are supposed to improve the performance and reliability in professional apps is a big part of why this notebook goes for $4000, but the 4K screen and the amount of RAM and storage play their role as well. In fact, compared to the other Quadro 5000 ultraportable options on the market, this is about on par with a similarly specced MSI WS65, and gets your more RAM/storage than a similarly priced Razer Blade Studio Edition. As for a top-tier MacBook Pro 16, well, they’re different tools for different needs, but hardware-wise the Quadro 5000 and the 4K screen in any of these Windows laptops outmatch those in the Apple laptop.
So the main question you should ask yourselves is whether do you actually need a Quadro 5000 graphics chip for your work. That 16GB memory buffer is the main reason you’d want to go with one of these over a lesser Quadro chip. Sure, if you’re running complicated models with shinny textures and expect them to run at 100+ fps, that might make sense, but at the same time, if that’s the case, is a 15-inch ultraportable laptop the ideal choice for you?
Even if that’s an YES, there are a couple of other things to consider. As far as I know, single-core CPU performance is what mostly matters with modeling, and the i7-9750H does well here, even if the Xeon would arguably have been the more appropriate choice on this top configuration. However, when it comes to multi-threaded CPU real-life loads, such as simulations and rendering, there are many more capable options out there these days. Then there’s the RAM matter, and whether you need more than 32 GB for your workloads, which is the dual-channel limit on this configuration. And you might, if your models require a Quadro 5000 in the first place.
Finally, are you sure a 15-inch portable form-factor is the ideal choice for your workstation? Won’t a 17-inch full-size and higher-performance option, such as the
StudioBook Pro X or the ThinkPad P73 or the HP/Dell workstation-grade notebooks make more sense, if you need something mobile? Or perhaps a desktop, if you don’t?
Well, if the answer is positive to all these questions, then this StudioBook Pro 15 mobile workstation is one of your choices out there. It ticks most of the right design, build and specs boxes, performs well for the form-factor, and can also run quietly when set on Auto without taking a major speed hit. Just make sure you’re fine with the lack of Thunderbolt 3 support and that quirky keyboard.
However, as I’m sure you figured out by now, this is a minuscule niche product, and I just think it would have been a more viable option for professionals in a more affordable RTX Quadro 3000 version. Asus
offers that for the StudioBook Pro 17 from $2200, which also benefits from a 16:10 display, and despite its multiple quirks, I feel there’s just better value in that product if a mobile workstation is the way to go for you.
Of course, I might be wrong, I’m not the prime demographics of this StudioBook and don’t run complex modeling/rendering projects for work. If you are, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this product down below, so please get in touch and let me know what you think about this StudioBook Pro 15 and whether this is something you would get or not.