Laptops  >  Microsoft Surface Pro 9  >  Laptop Test Results
Microsoft Surface Pro 9

Microsoft Surface Pro 9 Laptop test

127
laptop

We put the Microsoft Surface Pro 9 through our rigorous DXOMARK Laptop test suite to measure its performance both at sound, camera and display.

In this review, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key specifications include (as given by the manufacturer):

  • Physical specs : 287 x 209 x 9.3, 883g
  • Display : 2880×1920, Dynamic 120Hz, Touch, sRGB, Dolby Visio IQ
  • Audio : 2W stereo speakers with Dolby Atmos, Dual far field studio microphones
  • Webcam : Front-facing camera with 1080p full HD video, 10.0MP rear-facing autofocus camera with 1080p HD and 4k video

Scoring

Use-case and feature subscores included in the calculations of the global score

Microsoft Surface Pro 9 Microsoft Surface Pro 9
127
laptop
100
Camera
126
Display
131
Audio
BEST 144

Video Call

100

135

105

142

125

144

BEST 154

Music & Video

126

156

137

152

Pros

  • In video call, camera providing a high level of details
  • In video call, camera delivering an accurate and faithful color rendering
  • In video call, excellent signal to noise ratio, leaving out background noise in most situations
  • In music & video, good overall readability of the display
  • Natural and pleasing tonal balance overall
  • Dynamics are well handled with sharp impacts, and impactful punch rendition
  • Good handling of loud volumes with no noticeable artifacts

Cons

  • In video call, face exposure can be too low in challenging situations such as backlit scenes
  • In video call, Duplex / voice overlap situations are not handled correctly, with voices in both direction including strong gating, distortion and compression artifacts
  • In music & video, limited contrast of the display, not capable or rendering deep blacks
  • High reflectivity of the display leading to difficulties to watch the screen in backlit situations
  • Low ends lacking some power in music & video

 

Like the 5G version, the Microsoft Surface Pro 9 put in a great performance overall in this first batch of tests, with a particularly laudable performance in our video call use case. Despite its lack of HDR display capability, it is nonetheless very suitable for multimedia purposes.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Laptop tests: For scoring and analysis in our laptop reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective tests and undertake more than 20 hours of perceptual evaluations under controlled lab conditions and real-life scenarios.
(For more details about the  Laptop protocol, click here.)
The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Microsoft Surface Pro 9 overall & use-cases scores

Video Call

123

Microsoft Surface Pro 9

144

Apple MacBook Pro 14" (M2 Pro, 2023)
About DXOMARK Laptop tests

DXOMARK's Video call use case is a score that evaluates how a device handles video calls and videoconferencing in multiple conditions. This score focuses on the camera performance and the capture and playback rendering of voices. Read more about how we test the use cases of Video call score here.

The Surface Pro 9’s camera shared the top spot for Windows laptops overall with its 5G. It provided a good level of detail; however, face exposure can be too low in challenging backlit scenes, and dynamic range can be limiting. Despite some slight instabilities and color casts, color rendering was accurate and faithful. The device’s audio system produced good timbre in recordings, despite a slight lack of midrange body in tonal balance rendition. Although it controlled noise well, the laptop did not handle duplex situations well, with strong gating, distortion, and compression artifacts when more than one person was speaking.

Camera

100

Microsoft Surface Pro 9

135

Apple MacBook Pro 14" (M3 Pro, 2023)

The following chart presents the camera subscores for the video call use case:

Camera scores comparison
Camera texture acutance on Deadleaves with illuminance levels
This graph shows the evolution of texture acutance with the level of lux measured on a Deadleaves chart.

The following graphs show the objective measurements performed in our camera labs:

Camera visual noise evolution with illuminance levels
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Target exposure on face with illuminance levels
These measurements take place on a setup combining realistic mannequins and a backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. This graph shows the evolution of lightness measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin with the level of lux, for multiple lighting conditions. The lightness is measured in L*. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions.
Target exposure on face with illuminance levels in HDR conditions
These measurements take place on a setup combining realistic mannequins and a backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. This graph shows the evolution of lightness measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin with the level of lux, for multiple lighting conditions. The lightness is measured in L*. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions.
Target exposure on face with illuminance levels in HDR conditions
These measurements take place on a setup combining realistic mannequins and a backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. This graph shows the evolution of lightness measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin with the level of lux, for multiple lighting conditions. The lightness is measured in L*. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions.

Audio

125

Microsoft Surface Pro 9

144

Apple MacBook Pro 14" (M2 Pro, 2023)

The following chart presents the capture subscores for the video call use case:

Audio capture scores comparison

The following graphs show the frequency response, distortion and directivity in capture, recorded in our semi-anechoic room:

Audio capture frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency captured by the laptop when recording an objective test signal at 1 meter in an anechoic environment.
Audio capture Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise
This graph shows the Total Harmonic Distortion and Noise over the hearable frequency range. It represents the distortion and noise of the device capturing our test signal.
Audio capture directivity
Directivity graph of the laptop microphone(s) when capturing test signals using the camera app. It represents the acoustic energy (in dB) over the angle of incidence of the sound source (normalized to the angle 0°, in front of the device).

Music & Video

130

Microsoft Surface Pro 9

154

Apple MacBook Pro 14" (M3 Pro, 2023)
About DXOMARK Laptop tests

DXOMARK's Video and Music use case score evaluates the capability of a device to reproduce multimedia usages such as videos, movies and music playback in indoor conditions. This score focuses on the display performance and audio-playback rendering. Read more about how we test this use case here.

While the gamut coverage of SDR content was great and the overall rendering of colors was faithful, but blues appeared desaturated overall. Display contrast was a bit limited, as the panel technology is not capable of rendering deep blacks. Readability was good overall, with a great brightness range, but reflectivity was quite high, making the device difficult to read in backlit situations. The Surface Pro 9’s audio tonal balance was natural and pleasing overall, but the low end lacked some power compared to best-in-class laptops. The device had satisfying dynamics, and apart from some treble resonances at maximum volume, the device manages loud volumes well, with no other noticeable artifacts.

Display

126

Microsoft Surface Pro 9

156

Apple MacBook Pro 14" (M3 Pro, 2023)

The following chart presents the display subscores for the multimedia use case:

Display scores comparison

The following graphs show the objective measurements performed in our display lab:

Display gamut coverage for video contents
Laptop
Video gamut SDR
Laptop
Video gamut HDR
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.
Display reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Display reflectance profile
Display brightness uniformity
0.077
cd/m²
0.072
cd/m²
0.077
cd/m²
0.077
cd/m²
0.074
cd/m²
0.076
cd/m²
0.079
cd/m²
0.069
cd/m²
0.074
cd/m²
Laptop Distribution of brightness (min)
482.6
cd/m²
431.9
cd/m²
456.2
cd/m²
473
cd/m²
446.9
cd/m²
450.8
cd/m²
484.8
cd/m²
428.1
cd/m²
456.2
cd/m²
Laptop Distribution of brightness (max)
This illustration shows the brightness measured on nine zones of the display for minimum brightness (left) and maximum brightness (right) for SDR content.
Display SDR EOTF measurement
This graph represents the rendering of contrast (gray levels) for SDR video content, measured in the dark. We expect to be close to the 2.2 or 2.4 gamma references.
Display peak brightness for video contents

Display white point
Laptop
This graph represents the color temperature of white content, compared with the reference (Daylight illuminant D65) measured in the dark on video at minimum and maximum brightness.

Audio

137

Microsoft Surface Pro 9

152

Apple MacBook Pro 14" (M2 Pro, 2023)

The following chart presents the playback for the multimedia use case:

Audio playback scores comparison

The following graphs show the frequency response, distortion and directivity in multimedia playback, recorded in our semi-anechoic room:

Audio playback frequency response
A 1/12 octave frequency response graph, which measures the volume of each frequency emitted by the laptop when playing a pure-sine wave in an anechoic environment.
Audio playback Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise

DXOMARK encourages its readers to share comments on the articles. To read or post comments, Disqus cookies are required. Change your Cookies Preferences and read more about our Comment Policy.