It’s well past time to free the Surface Studio from its all-in-one trappings.

After four long years—during which I almost forgot about it!—Microsoft has finally released an updated Surface Studio 2+. This new version of its all-in-one PC for creative professionals brings it closer to current with today's computing-power trends, but still not at pole position, while maintaining its winning design.

However, after seeing three of these (admittedly incredibly designed) products now released with mobile processors and graphics that are dated on arrival, I can’t help but wonder: Why does Microsoft even bother with the computer part of the Studio equation anymore?

Most everyone is clearly in love with the 27-inch, beyond-4K display attached to Microsoft’s brilliant Zero Gravity Hinge. It’s the computer part that seems to get in the way, rendering each Studio relatively obsolete in short order. So why not just make a Surface Monitor (driven by Thunderbolt 4) and drop the computer part?

But first, let’s investigate the ups and downs of today’s Surface Studio sticking with the all-in-one approach. 

Unless Microsoft is cool with selling these at a loss, it’s clear that the Surface Studio absolutely works as a concept for an all-in-one PC for digital artists and designers. The release of the Surface Studio 2+ is evidence enough that it at least has an audience large enough to sustain two sequels. (Though, again, that four-year delay between releases was cause for concern.)

The number one benefit of the Studio being an AIO is its simplicity. The thing comes in a box with a Surface Pen, Surface Keyboard, and Surface Mouse included. Just plug it into an outlet, and you're ready to go.

Another major benefit, on a related note, is space saving. Having the computer hardware come part and parcel with the display stands to save you lots of desk space. Also related to space savings: The Studio doesn’t rely on Intel or AMD integrated graphics, like most other mini PCs do, by fitting a laptop-grade Nvidia GPU inside.

However, that brings us to exactly what seems to drag down the Surface Studio product with every iteration, and it’s a problem that could likely be easily solved.

Getting right to the point, it’s the mobile processors. (Well, that and general tardiness of updates, but more on that in a moment.)

Intel and Nvidia’s mobile processors have clearly exploded in capability over the past decade, closing the gap between them and standard desktop parts—but the gap persists. It’s still the case that desktop-grade CPUs and GPUs rule the roost for performance, efficiency be damned.

But, with a 27-inch drafting-table computer, I doubt energy efficiency is the chief concern of end users. It’s far more likely to be some variation of “how quickly can this thing render and export my projects?”

The Studio is chiefly aimed at creative professionals, people that work in visual media of all kinds—particularly art, design, and photography. If there’s one thing I know from being in the wider media world for more than a decade, it’s that deadlines matter.

What could help with meeting those deadlines more reliably and easily? Faster processing, of course, like that found in desktop-grade hardware. The faster that your machine can render or export your work, the sooner you should be able to meet that deadline.

Furthermore, it stands to reason that a Studio with more powerful desktop parts attached would be able to handle projects that are even richer and more complex—not to mention simply more projects at once.

Finally, not only is the Studio working with laptop parts in a desktop environment, but it’s mobile hardware that has repeatedly come far too late. In fact, just as the Surface Studio 2+ is set to hit shelves with an 11th Gen "Tiger Lake" Intel Core i7-11370H, Intel showed off its 13th Gen “Raptor Lake” desktop processors weeks earlier. And that means 13th Gen mobile processors can't be all that far behind.

While there aren’t many direct competitors to the Studio for Microsoft to worry about, it’s still working with a figurative ball and chain around its ankle.

Here’s the thing: If you’re going to be ultimately desk-bound with a product such as the Surface Studio 2+, why tether yourself to components designed for laptops just for the sake of saving a few inches of space? I think you’re losing more than you’re gaining that way.

With the majority of the computing components inside the Studio being within the device’s base, what’s holding Microsoft back from just gutting that thing, filling it with weights, and letting any particularly beefy PC drive the display over Thunderbolt 4? Aside from the fact that Microsoft would no longer be able to charge $4,500 per unit, I’m failing to see it.

OK, I can play devil’s advocate here and appeal to almighty capitalism: Microsoft, think of the volume you might be able to drive versus the high yield (and likely lower volume) of the Surface Studio 2+ today. Even if you would have to justifiably cut the cost of such a product, it wouldn’t have to be by much.

Just look at Apple’s $5,000 Pro Display XR. That’s just a screen—albeit one of the best displays ever made, designed to replace five-figure displays used in pro film editing—and Apple isn’t afraid to charge a mighty premium. Now, consider Apple's $1,599 Studio Display, which is still sharper than the Surface Studio screen but also is a standard, non-touch panel.

If Microsoft were to cut the price of a would-be, computer-less “Surface Slab” (trademarked, all rights reserved) in half (to, say, $2,000), you’ve just made the core of the Studio’s innovation—its massive, movable touch display—available to so many more customers. Freelance contractors could use the powerful desktop systems they already have while saving thousands. And larger design and media firms would stand to save considerably through their special sales channels.

Most important? Microsoft could reach far more professionals with its incredible digital drafting table if the thing wasn’t permanently tethered to a whole computer that, honestly, is bottlenecking the full potential of this brilliant creators’ tool.

Call it a Surface Slab, a Surface Monitor, I don’t care. All I know is that—for once—removing the computer from this PC might be the best move to maintain a consistently relevant, compelling product.

Sign up for What's New Now to get our top stories delivered to your inbox every morning.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

Your subscription has been confirmed. Keep an eye on your inbox!

After starting my career at PCMag as an intern more than a decade ago, I’m back as one of its editors, focused on laptops and desktops. I have been on staff and been published in technology review publications including PCMag (of course!), Laptop Magazine, Tom’s Guide, TechRadar, and IGN. I’ve tested and reviewed hundreds of laptops along the way, and helped develop testing protocols, too. I’m also well-versed in video games coverage.

PCMag.com is a leading authority on technology, delivering lab-based, independent reviews of the latest products and services. Our expert industry analysis and practical solutions help you make better buying decisions and get more from technology.

© 1996-2022 Ziff Davis. PCMag Digital Group

PCMag, PCMag.com and PC Magazine are among the federally registered trademarks of Ziff Davis and may not be used by third parties without explicit permission. The display of third-party trademarks and trade names on this site does not necessarily indicate any affiliation or the endorsement of PCMag. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product or service, we may be paid a fee by that merchant.