Overview: Asus ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED laptop computer

 
Can a cellular workstation actually maintain up in opposition to a equally specified desktop system in manufacturing? Jason Lewis places considered one of Asus’s new Nvidia Studio cellular programs by an array of real-world exams to seek out out.

 
On this assessment, we’re going to be having a look at a cellular workstation constructed upon the Nvidia Studio platform, the Asus ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED. It has been fairly a while since I’ve had the chance to check a cellular system tailor-made to graphics work (the final time was again in 2015 with the HP ZBook 17 G2) so I used to be curious to see how seven years of technical advances have formed cellular workstations.

This assessment is damaged up into two components, the primary specializing in the system, and the second on Nvidia Studio itself. However first, let’s handle a query that artists have been asking since cellular workstations first turned obtainable: is it higher to make use of a desktop or cellular system for skilled graphics work?

I’ve touched on this in earlier evaluations, and the reply all the time is dependent upon your wants as an artist. Again in 2015, my conclusion was: if it’s worthwhile to be transportable, a cellular workstation could be a viable various to a desktop system, albeit at a barely increased value. For those who want absolutely the quickest system you will get, or if upgradeability is essential, you’re higher off with a desktop. However does the identical maintain true as we speak?

Leap to a different a part of this assessment
System specifications
Testing procedure
Benchmark results
Other considerations
The Nvidia Studio platform
Verdict

System specs

For cellular programs, Nvidia Studio laptops have fairly spectacular specs. After I began reviewing cellular workstations within the early 2010s, four-core CPUs have been the most effective you possibly can hope for. In the present day, some programs go as excessive as 16 CPU cores. Pair that with the present Nvidia RTX GPUs (on the time this assessment was written, the GeForce RTX 30 Sequence, however since up to date to the 40 Sequence), and you’ve got a recipe for efficiency.

The Asus ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED we’re taking a look at right here isn’t Asus’s top-of-the-range cellular system, nevertheless it’s nonetheless fairly highly effective, sporting an eight-core AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX CPU operating at 3.3 GHz (with a most enhance pace of 4.6 GHz), and a Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 cellular GPU along with the Radeon Vega GPU on the 5900HX die. For reminiscence, the Studiobook 16 is supplied with 32GB of three,200MHz DDR4 RAM in a 2 x 16GB configuration, and for storage, 2 x 1TB PCIe 4.0 M.2 SSD drives in a RAID 0 configuration.

For the entire high-performance {hardware} packed into it, the Studiobook 16 is remarkably skinny: about half the thickness of the HP ZBook 17 I checked out in 2015. It’s heavier than it seems to be – the load caught me off guard the primary time I picked it up – nevertheless it’s nonetheless considerably lighter than the ZBook.

 
Flipping up the display screen reveals a fairly commonplace back-lit mobile-format keyboard with skinny, short-throw keys, a generously sized trackpad, and the Asus Dial, a mechanical wheel that controls varied capabilities in DCC functions. It may be mapped to customized shortcuts by Asus’s ProArt Creator Hub app.

 
Connectivity is respectable: not the most effective I’ve seen in a cellular system, however not the worst both, with two full dimension USB 3.2 Gen2 Kind-A ports, two USB 3.2 Gen2 Kind-C ports, a HDMI 2.1 port, a RJ45 Ethernet port, a 3.5mm audio jack, a SD Categorical 7.0 card reader and the DC energy enter. These compete for area alongside the edges of the system with a pair of relatively massive cooling exhaust vents.

The Studiobook 16 additionally features a standard-fare HD webcam constructed into the highest of the show bezel, however in contrast to many cellular programs, it has a built-in privateness shutter: a pleasant contact.

This explicit configuration has a 16-inch 4K OLED show with a decision of three,840 x 2,400px in a 16:10 side ratio. It’s DisplayHDR 500 True Black-certified, with a 1,000,000:1 distinction ratio and a peak brightness of 550nits, runs at 60Hz with a 0.2ms response time, shows as much as 1.07 billion colors (a color gamut of 100% DCI-P3 or 133% sRGB), and is Pantone-validated.

Testing process

On paper, the Studiobook 16 ought to have the option maintain as much as loads of desktop programs with out breaking a sweat. To check that concept, I benchmarked it in opposition to a desktop system with related specs: a Dell XPS workstation with a 10-core Intel Core i9-10900K operating at 3.7GHz (with a most enhance pace of 5.3GHz), a Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 GPU, 64GB of three,200MHz DDR4 RAM, and a 2TB PCIe 3.0 M.2 SSD drive.

The desktop system has a bonus in CPU clock pace and two additional CPU cores, however the Studiobook has quicker storage. (The desktop system additionally has double the reminiscence, however so long as our benchmark exams don’t exceed 32GB, the additional RAM shouldn’t have a lot impact on efficiency.) Essentially the most attention-grabbing comparability goes to be how Studiobook’s GeForce RTX 3070 cellular GPU stacks as much as its desktop counterpart.

For testing, I used the next functions:

Viewport efficiency
3ds Max 2023, Blender 3.2.1, Chaos Vantage 1.6.2, Maya 2023, Substance 3D Painter 8.1.1, Unreal Engine 5.0.3

Rendering
Blender 3.2.1 (utilizing Cycles, examined on CPU and GPU), Corona 8 for 3ds Max (CPU solely), Arnold (by way of MtoA 5.1.0, utilizing Arnold GPU), V-Ray 6 for 3ds Max (utilizing V-Ray GPU)

Different benchmarks
Axiom 2.1 for Houdini, Metashape 1.8.2, Premiere Professional 2022, World Machine 4027

Artificial benchmarks
3DMark, Cinebench R23, OctaneBench 2020

Within the viewport benchmarks, the body charge scores characterize the figures attained when manipulating the 3D property proven, averaged over 5 testing periods to get rid of inconsistencies. Testing was carried out at 60Hz on the native decision of the Studiobook 16’s OLED show (3,840 x 2,400px), and on desktop, on a 32-inch 4K show operating at its native decision of three,840 x 2,160px.

Benchmark outcomes

Viewport efficiency
The viewport benchmarks embody key DCC functions 3ds Max, Blender and Maya, plus 3D portray device Substance 3D Painter, scene exploration device Chaos Vantage, and sport engine Unreal Engine.

Within the viewport benchmarks, the desktop model of the GeForce RTX 3070 GPU within the Dell XPS beats its cellular counterpart within the Studiobook 16 by a median of round 5-10% – though that could be much less concerning the efficiency of the {hardware} than the truth that the desktop card is driving a conventional 3,840 x 2,160px 4K show, whereas the cellular card has to push roughly 11% extra pixels to drive the Studiobook’s 3,840 x 2,400px show. In any case, at these body charges, the distinction is barely noticeable.

Rendering
The rendering benchmarks embody each CPU and GPU renderers. Corona runs on the CPU; Arnold and V-Ray have been examined on the GPU; and Blender’s Cycles renderer on each.

The rendering benchmarks yield related outcomes to the viewport show exams, offering the GPU is getting used for rendering. For the 2 CPU rendering benchmarks – Blender’s Cycles renderer and Corona – the efficiency hole will increase, with the 2 additional CPU cores of the desktop system’s Core i9-10900K offering further rendering horsepower in comparison with the Studiobook’s Ryzen 9 5900HX.

Different benchmarks
The following set of benchmarks covers extra specialist apps: volumetric fluid solver Axiom, photogrammetry software program Metashape, video editor Premiere Professional and terrain generator World Machine.

The extra benchmarks observe an analogous sample to the viewport and rendering exams, with the Studiobook 16 operating neck-and-neck with the desktop system on the GPU-based Axiom solver, however the desktop system taking the lead within the different benchmarks, the place the CPU comes into play.

Artificial benchmarks
Lastly, we’ve got three artificial benchmark exams. Artificial benchmarks don’t precisely predict how a machine will carry out in manufacturing, however I’ve embody them right here as a strategy to make approximate efficiency comparisons to different programs, since databases of scores can be found on-line.

Our artificial exams yield some attention-grabbing outcomes. 3DMark and OctaneBench carry out roughly as anticipated, with the desktop system taking the lead over the Studiobook, albeit not by a lot.

However with CPU benchmark Cinebench, the Studiobook really beats the desktop system by a small margin, regardless of its drawback in each CPU core depend and clock pace. I’m not positive why that is, however my suspicion is that Cinebench simply performs nicer with AMD’s Zen 3 CPU structure, which is barely newer than the Intel Comet Lake CPU within the desktop system.

Different concerns

Energy consumption
Given how related the efficiency of the 2 programs is, you would possibly anticipate them to make use of an analogous quantity of vitality. The truth is, the Studiobook 16 makes use of considerably much less energy than the desktop system: in some circumstances, lower than half. This might clarify why it doesn’t get uncomfortably scorching underneath regular use. A number of spots across the keyboard get fairly heat with prolonged use, however I’ve used cellular programs that run a lot hotter.

Show high quality
Lastly, we come to the Studiobook 16’s large, vibrant, stunning show. This was my first expertise with an OLED PC show, and I liked it. Colours are vibrant and fantastically saturated, the blacks are actually black, and the general distinction is superb.

My desk is cluttered with LCD and LED desktop shows, and in my view, it beats all of them simply – together with a pair which might be dearer than the complete Studiobook 16. Even when the system itself have been full rubbish (it isn’t – fairly the reverse), the show alone could be a robust argument in its favour.

The Nvidia Studio platform

Earlier than we get to the ultimate verdict, I wish to dive into the Nvidia Studio ecosystem that the ProArt Studiobook 16 is a part of. Nvidia touts its Studio line of desktop and cellular programs as instruments to permit artists to ‘create on the pace of creativeness’. The Studio ecosystem has three elements: {hardware}, drivers and software program.

The {hardware} element is a set of requirements that system distributors want to satisfy to obtain the Nvidia Studio stamp of approval. There are specific requirements for the CPU, GPU, RAM, storage and show, however programs don’t want to incorporate GPUs from Nvidia’s RTX Axxxx collection {of professional} GPUs: most of these currently available by way of Nvidia’s e-store have shopper GeForce RTX GPUs. Skilled playing cards nonetheless have their place for duties that want very excessive graphics reminiscence capacities, however for almost all of artistic work, shopper GPUs are completely succesful, and evidently Nvidia is lastly acknowledging this.

The following element of the Nvidia Studio ecosystem is GPU drivers. For a very long time, solely Nvidia’s skilled GPUs (the RTX Axxxx collection, and earlier than it, the Quadro playing cards) bought drivers particularly tuned for DCC functions, however the Nvidia Studio drivers now give shopper GPUs the identical therapy.

The ultimate element of the Nvidia Studio ecosystem is a set of software applications obtainable to Nvidia Studio customers (you’ll be able to obtain them even should you don’t have a Nvidia Studio system, however all of them require a Nvidia GPU): Nvidia Canvas, Nvidia Broadcast, Nvidia Omniverse and the Nvidia Texture Instruments Exporter. I haven’t had an opportunity to do a deep dive into them, however these are my preliminary reactions.

Nvidia Canvas is an AI-based image-creation device that lets you paint easy brushstrokes on a clean canvas and have Canvas generate a photorealistic panorama primarily based on them. It might probably generate fairly spectacular outcomes underneath very particular circumstances, however more often than not, the output isn’t {of professional} high quality. For idea artists, it may very well be a fast strategy to generate a base picture that may then be refined in Photoshop or different image-editing software program, nevertheless it appears extra like an AI showcase than a sensible DCC device, and is massively outclassed by AI-based picture turbines like Midjourney.

Nvidia Broadcast is a collection of AI-based audio and video filters that may be utilized to the output of your system’s microphone and digicam to reinforce streaming and video conferencing. It may be used with most typical platforms, together with Discord, Zoom and Google Meet. That is the Studio software I actually like. It doesn’t do something revolutionary: simply processes audio and video in the identical manner that almost all streaming platforms do natively, however a lot better! Because it’s free for anybody with a present Nvidia GPU, there’s no motive to not use it, though customers with sub-$100 webcams and mics will see probably the most profit.

 
Subsequent is Nvidia Omniverse. Omniverse is an attention-grabbing beast. It’s marketed as a scene-assembly hub that may connect with in style DCC functions, enabling customers to construct, animate and render DCC tasks, collaborating with different artists in actual time. Consider it as Nvidia’s reply to real-time graphics engines like Unreal Engine or Unity, with multi-user collaboration and reside hyperlinks to DCC functions thrown in.

From a technical perspective, Omniverse is spectacular. Nvidia principally wrote its personal real-time graphics engine, and added multi-user capabilities at a core degree. However I’ve but to come across knowledgeable sport growth or content material creation studio utilizing it. That will change in future, however DCC apps can already construct, animate and render scenes, and have a loyal and entrenched consumer base, whereas studios have their very own tried-and-tested strategies of collaboration. Leisure artists are a finicky bunch, and we worry change!

Nonetheless, I have to admit that I’ve not spent sufficient time with Omniverse to actually decide its usefulness. I’ll spend extra time with it sooner or later to get a greater understanding of its supposed function and advantages.

Lastly, we’ve got the Nvidia Texture Tools Exporter. It’s a useful little app that generates a number of forms of real-time pleasant texture maps from from a supply picture, and is obtainable as a standalone software or as a Photoshop plugin. I take advantage of it fairly a bit to generate regular maps from images in these few circumstances the place I’m not utilizing Substance 3D supplies or photoscanned textures, and it really works fairly effectively, particularly since Photoshop’s native regular map conversion device is, in my view, full crap.

Verdict

It’s time to see if we will reply the massive query that was requested early on on this article: is is healthier to make use of a desktop or cellular system for skilled graphics work?

Let’s take a look at efficiency first. For probably the most half, the Asus ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED retains up with a Dell desktop system with related specs. The desktop system comes out prime in many of the benchmarks, however by a comparatively small margin, and aside from a number of CPU-heavy exams, you’ll hardly discover the distinction in day-to-day work.

Subsequent, value. As of the time of testing, I used to be unable to seek out any on-line outlets promoting Studiobook 16 programs with precisely the identical configuration as our check machine. Nonetheless, I did discover a number of with a GeForce RTX 3060 GPU as a substitute of a RTX 3070, and people have been promoting for round $2,300, so I’d estimate a price ticket of round $2,500. A Dell XPS system with related specs to the desktop machine, however a more recent 16-core Intel Core i9-12900 CPU, price a bit of over $2,400. On condition that with the desktop system, you would want to pay additional to improve to an OLED show, I’d say the Studiobook 16 really wins on price.

So what conclusions can we draw? First, that Nvidia Studio cellular workstations can certainly be used for demanding content material creation duties. And second, in relation to price, there may be now little distinction between equally performing cellular and desktop programs.

A few of you could now be pondering: ‘If this cellular system is so nice, why would I ever wish to use a desktop system once more?’ Properly, regardless of the strengths of the ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED and different Nvidia Studio laptops, cellular programs do have two actually large drawbacks.

The primary is {that a} desktop system is well upgradeable, whereas a cellular system will not be. Most often, you’ll be able to solely improve the reminiscence and storage, and even these prime out at a lot decrease values than in a comparable desktop system.

The second is that whereas a cellular system could carry out on par with an equal desktop machine, you’ll be able to construct desktop programs which might be way more highly effective than obtainable cellular programs. At the moment, cellular programs prime out at 8-12 CPU cores, 32-64GB of RAM and 2-4TB of storage. With desktop programs, you’ll be able to rise up to 64 CPU cores, a number of terabytes of RAM, and storage arrays of over 40TB. Granted, these components are very costly, however you’ve the choice to make use of them, whereas with a cellular system, you don’t.

For those who want your major system to be transportable, otherwise you simply want the shape issue of a laptop computer, a Nvidia Studio cellular system might be a superb match. (And within the case of the Asus ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED, that lovely OLED show is an actual promoting level.) If upgradeability is essential to you, otherwise you merely want extra uncooked processing energy – and may afford to pay for it – a desktop system will suit your wants higher.

Lastly, thanks for stopping by and taking the time to take a look at this assessment. My aim is to supply digital artists an in-depth take a look at trendy {hardware} and software program options, and the way they actually address DCC duties. I hope that this has been an fulfilling and informative learn, and to see you once more on the subsequent one!

Hyperlinks

Read more about the ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED laptop on the Asus website

Read more about the Nvidia Studio ecosystem

Concerning the reviewer

Jason Lewis is Atmosphere Artwork Lead at Group Kaiju and CG Channel’s common reviewer. You possibly can see extra of his work in his ArtStation gallery. Contact him at jason [at] cgchannel [dot] com

Acknowledgements

I want to give particular because of the next individuals for his or her help in bringing you this assessment:

Shannon Baker of Zeno
Daria Bianchini of Zeno
Stephen G Wells
Adam Hernandez
Thad Clevenger

Tags: 3d, 3D modeling, 3D scanning, 3DMark, 3ds max, 4K, AMD, arch viz, architectural visualization, are Nvidia Studio laptops worth the money, Arnold, Asus, Asus Dial, Asus ProArt 16 OLED, Asus ProArt Studiobook 16, Axiom, base clock, benchmark, benchmark scores, benchmark tests, Blender, boost clock, CAD, can a mobile workstation compete with a desktop system, can the Asus Studiobook Pro compete with a desktop system, Chaos Vantage, clock speed, color gamut, compositing, compute performance, connectivity, consumer GPU, content creation, contrast ratio, cooling, Corona, CPU, CPU rendering, CUDA, Cycles, DCC, DCI-P3, DDR4, Dell, dimensions, display, display resolution, DisplayHDR 500 TrueBlack, fluid solver, FP32, game art, game development, Game Engine, gaming GPU, GeForce RTX, GeForce RTX 3070, GPU, GPU driver, GPU rendering, HDMI 2.1, image based modeling, Intel Core i9-10900K, Jason Lewis, lighting, material authoring, Maya, Metashape, mtoa, Nvida Broadcast, NVIDIA, Nvidia Canvas, NVIDIA Studio, Nvidia Studio driver, Nvidia Studio software, Nvidia. Omniverse, Nvidia. Texture Tools, OctaneBench, OctaneRender, OLED, OptiX, Pantone, performance, Photogrammetry, post-production, power consumption, power use, Premiere Pro, price, price comparison, production benchmark, professional GPU, Quadro, RAID 0, RAM, ray tracing, real-world benchmark, real-world test, rendering, response time, Review, RTX Axxxx, Ryzen 9 5900HX, specifications, sRGB, storage, Studio driver, Substance 3D Designer, TDP, Tensor core, terrain generation, test, texturing, thickness, Type-A, Type-C, Unreal Engine, USB 3.2, V-Ray, V-Ray GPU, vfx, video editing, viewport performance, visual effects, VRAM, weight, workstation GPU, World Machine, XPS, Zen 3