Notebookcheck

Face Off: Microsoft Surface Pro 4 vs. HP Spectre x2 12 vs. Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

The better Windows tablet. Microsoft isn't the only manufacturer of Windows tablets. Competitors are slowly but surely catching up to the respected Surface series of tablets to be considered serious alternatives. Do the Spectre x2 12 and Stylistic Q665 offer something that a Surface won't?

We've already compared the Surface Pro 4 against itself as three separate SKUs. While the Surface series still offers the best Windows experience in a tablet form factor, we wanted to see how the latest Surface Pro 4 compares to a couple of other high ranking Windows tablets from competing manufacturers.

We encourage users to check out our dedicated review pages below for more data and detailed analyses of each of the three models. This comparison is by no means a replacement, but a condensed aid for those on the fence.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Case

Microsoft's tablet is the most robust with its sturdy magnesium casing that barely flexes. HP's tablet uses an aluminum build that feels just as sturdy, but the upper length of the back is made of weaker plastic that heavily contrasts the otherwise excellent build quality everywhere else on the device. The Fujitsu solution is largely plastic with above average resistance to twists and depressions. Its back cover, however, is more easily removable. In essence, we have a tablet with superb build quality but almost impossible maintenance (Surface Pro 4), a tablet that rivals Microsoft in quality with relatively easier maintenance (Spectre x2 12), and a tablet with a weaker build but with better repairability than the rest (Stylistic Q665).

In terms of weight, the Stylistic Q665 is the lightest at 753 g compared to 774 g and 850 g of the Surface Pro 4 and Spectre x2 12, respectively. When taking into account the keyboard docks, the Microsoft, HP, and Fujitsu tablets weigh 1066 g, 1229 g, and 1533 g, respectively. Thus, the Fujitsu can be heavier than the rest due to its thicker docking station.

Microsoft would win this round on design and quality alone, but it's hard to ignore how user-unfriendly the maintenance will be if the Surface Pro 4 ever experiences hardware issues. The HP offers the better balance with a mostly metal chassis and accessible screws on its back panel for troubleshooting.

Winner: HP Spectre x2 12

303 mm / 11.9 inch 209 mm / 8.23 inch 13.1 mm / 0.516 inch 1.2 kg2.71 lbs294.8 mm / 11.6 inch 192.4 mm / 7.57 inch 11.9 mm / 0.4685 inch 1.5 kg3.38 lbs292 mm / 11.5 inch 202 mm / 7.95 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 1.1 kg2.35 lbs

Ports in Comparison

Microsoft Surface Pro 4
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
HP Spectre x2 12
HP Spectre x2 12
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

Connectivity

There are vital differences in available ports between the three Windows tablets. For one, the HP lacks a full-size USB port in favor of two USB Type-C Gen. 1 ports for charging, transfers, docks, and video-out. While this will better future-proof the tablet, an innumerable number of users will certainly wish that it had at least one full-size USB port like on the Surface Pro 4 or Stylistic Q665. Be ready to carry a handful of USB Type-C adapters to make the most out of the Spectre x2 12.

Meanwhile, the Surface Pro 4 is the only one out of the three with no SIM or WWAN options. An objective winner in this category would be impossible to choose as each tablet includes an option not found on the others.

Winner: Tie

Ports and Connections

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 HP Spectre x2 12 Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

USB

1x USB 3.0 2x USB 3.1 Type-C Gen. 1 1x USB 3.0, 1x USB 2.0

Video-out

1x mDP None 1x micro-HDMI

Other

MicroSD reader, 1x 3.5 mm audio MicroSD, 1x 3.5 mm audio, SIM slot (optional) MicroSD reader, 1x 3.5 mm audio, SIM slot

Input Devices

The keyboard dock for the Surface Pro 4 is a noticeable upgrade from the previous Type Cover for the Surface Pro 3. Travel is longer with a rigid case that does not yield significantly when typing. In comparison, the keys on the aluminum HP dock tend to clatter more loudly when typing. HP offers two different size docks as well - one with a Smart Card reader and one without.

The Fujitsu keyboard dock is the clunkiest since it utilizes mechanical locks instead of magnets like on the Surface Pro 4 and Spectre x2 12. Its surface will yield a bit more when typing and the keys include no backlight option.

As for the touchpads, both the Microsoft and HP tablets offer solid and reliable performance for scrolling and multi-touch inputs, especially on the wider touchpad of the HP. Nonetheless, the dedicated mouse keys of the Fujitsu are easier to use with clearer and more audible feedback than the integrated solution on the two competitors. It's a shame that none of the keyboard docks offer a TrackPoint to appease core business users.

Winner: Keyboard -- Microsoft Surface Pro 4

              Touchpad -- Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

Microsoft Surface Pro 4
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
HP Spectre x2 12
HP Spectre x2 12
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

Display

Microsoft offers the larger display size, brighter backlight, higher pixel count, and more appropriate screen ratio for general work. While its gamut is as wide as the Fujitsu, colors are less accurate out-of-the-box unless if users opt in for the pricier Core i7 SKU. Thus, the display on the Surface Pro 4 m3 SKU should be more fitting for those who don't demand the most accurate of colors.

Grayscale is much worse on both the HP and Fujitsu compared to the Microsoft tablet. A calibration is recommended for warmer color temperatures on both of these devices. Additionally, while it's true that the Fujitsu tablet uses a matte panel to reduce glare and reflections, its backlight is also noticeably weaker than both Microsoft and HP, so its outdoor advantage is somewhat mitigated.

Winner: Microsoft Surface Pro 4

Microsoft Surface Pro 4
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
HP Spectre x2 12
HP Spectre x2 12
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Displays at a Glance

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 HP Spectre x2 12 Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Size 12.3-inch IPS 3:2 12.0-inch IPS 16:9 11.6-inch IPS 16:9
Native Resolution 2736 x 1824 1920 x 1080 1920 x 1080
Pixel Density 267 PPI 184 PPI 190 PPI
Panel ID Samsung SDC3853 LG Philips LGD04A5 Sharp LQ116M1JW02
Panel Glossy Glossy Matte
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EAFujitsu Stylistic Q665
Response Times
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
46 (17.2, 28.8)
47 (16, 31)
74 (28, 46)
Response Time Black / White *
31 (6, 25.2)
26 (5, 21)
54 (20, 34)
PWM Frequency
50 (50)
211 (147)
Screen
Brightness middle
389.2
353
332
Brightness
392
347
321
Brightness Distribution
92
91
86
Black Level *
0.27
0.44
0.19
Contrast
1441
802
1747
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.61
6.09
5.56
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.8
6.24
7.01
Gamma
2.16 102%
2.41 91%
2.27 97%
CCT
5969 109%
7238 90%
8459 77%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
63
46
63
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
97
71
97
Total Average (Program / Settings)

* ... smaller is better

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 color profile
Microsoft Surface Pro 4 color profile
HP Spectre x2 12
HP Spectre x2 12
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

Performance

CPU Performance

Microsoft, HP, and Fujitsu all offer multiple CPU options beyond what we have here, so this comparison is only between the configurations on hand.

In terms raw CPU power, even the lowest-end Surface Pro 4 SKU can outperform the Spectre x2 12 and Stylistic Q665 according to CineBench benchmarks. Multi-core performance is over 30 percent faster than the older Broadwell Core M-5Y31 in the Fujitsu due to moderate throttling issues with the Stylistic Q665. Results are even slightly better on the Surface Pro 4 than on the HP for the same throttling reasons despite the higher-end Core m7-6Y75 in the Spectre x2 12.

See our dedicated CPU pages on the Core m3-6Y30, Core m7-6Y75, and Core M-5Y31 for more comparisons and benchmarks.

Hardware at a Glance

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 HP Spectre x2 12 Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

CPU

0.9 GHz Core m3-6Y30 1.2 GHz Core m7-6Y75 0.9 GHz Core M-5Y31

TDP

4.5 W 4.5 W 4.5 W

RAM

4 GB LPDDR3 1866 MHz, Dual-channel, Soldered 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz, Dual-channel, Soldered 8 GB LPDDR3 1600 MHz, Dual-channel, Soldered

GPU

Intel HD Graphics 515 Intel HD Graphics 515 Intel HD Graphics 5300

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (Source: iFixit)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (Source: iFixit)
HP Spectre x2 12 (Source: HP)
HP Spectre x2 12 (Source: HP)
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
88 Points ∼40%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
80 Points ∼37%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
79 Points ∼36%
CPU Multi 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
206 Points ∼5%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
177 Points ∼4%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
148 Points ∼3%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
0.98 Points ∼40%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
0.94 Points ∼39%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
0.93 Points ∼38%
CPU Multi 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
2.27 Points ∼5%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
2.15 Points ∼5%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
1.67 Points ∼4%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
4297 Points ∼42%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
5022 Points ∼49%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
8886 Points ∼12%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
8461 Points ∼11%
wPrime 2.0x
1024m (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
787.585 s * ∼9%
32m (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
25.109 s * ∼5%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - --- (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
898 Seconds * ∼4%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
1248 Seconds * ∼6%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Physics (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
3140 Points ∼10%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
3254 Points ∼10%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
2662 Points ∼8%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Physics (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
2238 Points ∼6%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
2304 Points ∼6%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
1874 Points ∼5%
PCMark 7 - Score (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
4274 Points ∼47%
PCMark 8
Storage Score (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
4616 Points ∼91%
Work Score Accelerated v2 (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
3186 Points ∼49%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
4078 Points ∼63%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
3574 Points ∼55%
Creative Score Accelerated v2 (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
2968 Points ∼28%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
3362 Points ∼32%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
3028 Points ∼29%
Home Score Accelerated v2 (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
2426 Points ∼40%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
2675 Points ∼44%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
2588 Points ∼42%
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0
Pass 2 (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
14.15 fps ∼0%
Pass 1 (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
76.82 fps ∼28%

* ... smaller is better

GPU Performance

Microsoft's Surface Pro 4 comes out on top once again despite having the same integrated HD Graphics 515 GPU as the HP. The older HD Graphics 5300 in the Fujitsu lags behind by almost twofold.

See our dedicated GPU pages on the HD Graphics 515 and HD Graphics 5300 for more comparisons and benchmarks.

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
1206 Points ∼2%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
996 Points ∼2%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
620 Points ∼1%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
810 Points ∼2%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
725 Points ∼2%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
439 Points ∼1%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
6597 Points ∼4%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
6298 Points ∼3%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
3744 Points ∼2%
Cinebench R11.5 - OpenGL 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
26.43 fps ∼15%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
19.82 fps ∼12%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
14.93 fps ∼9%
Cinebench R15 - OpenGL 64Bit (sort by value)
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
33.48 fps ∼13%
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
25.94 fps ∼10%
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
16.83 fps ∼7%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
HP Spectre x2 12
HP Spectre x2 12
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

Stress Test

We run both Prime95 and FurMark to simulate maximum stress and test system stability. These unrealistic conditions do not represent daily workloads, but are instead meant to put both the CPU and GPU at 100 percent capacity. 

Our stress test results show why the Surface Pro 4 is able to outperform both the HP and Fujitsu in the aforementioned synthetic benchmarks. The Microsoft tablet is the only one out of the three where its stable CPU clock rate is higher than its base clock rate, so no major CPU throttling occurs. The lower core temperature ceiling on the Fujitsu means that both its CPU and GPU will throttle at much lower clock rates than the HP and Microsoft. The comparatively larger heat pipes in the Surface Pro 4 are likely responsible for the system's better performance under stress as well.

Winner: Microsoft Surface Pro 4

Microsoft Surface Pro 4
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
HP Spectre x2 12
HP Spectre x2 12
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
CPU and GPU Clock Rates Under Stress

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 HP Spectre x2 12 Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Rated GPU Core Clock (MHz) 850 950 850
Stable GPU Core Clock on FurMark (MHz) 650 500 300
Rated CPU Core Clock (GHz) 0.9 1.2 0.9
Stable CPU Core Clock on Prime95 (GHz) 1.1 0.9 0.5
Average CPU temperature 60 C 70 C 50 C

Emissions

Temperature

The Fujitsu tablet is warmer under stress compared to the Microsoft and HP despite it having a lower temperature ceiling before throttling occurs. We were able to record a hot spot of just over 50 C at worst, which can be uncomfortable to hold. The HP runs a bit cooler than the Surface Pro 4 due in part to its thicker build.

Winner: HP Spectre x2 12

Average Surface Temperature

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 HP Spectre x2 12 Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

Average surface temperature when idling

29.5 C 26.8 C 28.6 C

Average surface temperature under high loads

37.5 C 36.3 C 40.9 C

Ambient temperature

Battery Life

Runtimes are very close between the Surface Pro 4 and Stylistic Q665 at just under 500 minutes each of constant WLAN use. The HP lasts roughly two hours shorter in comparison despite the slightly larger battery capacity.

Winner: Microsoft Surface Pro 4

Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
38 Wh
HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA
42 Wh
Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
38 Wh
Battery Runtime
Reader / Idle
791
954
WiFi v1.3
488
361
495
Load
138
166

Verdict

While the Surface Pro 4 excels in most categories, there are still a few compelling reasons to prefer the HP Spectre x2 12 over Microsoft's latest tablet flagship.
While the Surface Pro 4 excels in most categories, there are still a few compelling reasons to prefer the HP Spectre x2 12 over Microsoft's latest tablet flagship.

It's only fitting that the maker of Windows also produces the best Windows tablet. While the Surface Pro 4 isn't perfect, it carries a number of key advantages over the HP Spectre x2 12 that make it the overall easier recommendation. For one, even the lowest-end Surface Pro 4 SKU outperforms both the HP and Fujitsu in CPU and GPU benchmarks. It also has the longer battery life, the brighter display, and the more consistent build quality with no strips of plastic.

The HP tablet fills in the small gaps omitted by the Microsoft tablet, namely by offering SIM and Smart Card options, better repairability, and multiple USB Type-C ports. Thus, the Spectre x2 12 is an excellent alternative if all of these features are vital to the user. Unfortunately, the HP tablet falters in most other areas by having no USB Type-A ports, a dimmer display backlight, weaker colors, thicker and heavier build, increased sensitivity to throttling, and shorter runtimes.

Fujitsu's solution uses the increasingly unpopular latch-and-hook mechanism for its keyboard base instead of a rear stand as found on its two competitors. Its plastic build and slower performance will put off many users as well. It does, however, carry dual USB Type-A ports, a fingerprint reader, SIM slot, and matte display. It's a trade off between the Surface Pro 4 and Spectre x2 12, all things considered.

Microsoft Surface Pro 4HP Spectre x2 12Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

+ No CPU throttling; Larger heat pipes

+ Brighter display backlight

+ Built-in kickstand

+ Rigid keyboard base w/ backlight

+ SIM options

+ More accessible internals

+ Built-in kickstand

+ Rigid keyboard base w/ backlight and Smart Card options

+ SIM options

+ Dedicated mouse keys

+ More accessible internals

+ Fingerprint reader

- Less accurate colors

- User-unfriendly maintenance

- No SIM options or USB Type-C

- No full-size USB ports

- CPU and GPU throttling under extreme conditions

- Lower display contrast; Narrower color gamut

- Heavier tablet

- CPU and GPU throttling under extreme conditions

- Warmer surface temperatures

- Wobbly hinges; Top heavy

- No keyboard backlight

- Heavier keyboard dock

- No USB Type-C

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 m3

Pricecompare

HP Spectre x2 12

Pricecompare

Fujitsu Stylistic Q665

Pricecompare

See more quick comparisons in our Face Off series:

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Face Off: Microsoft Surface Pro 4 vs. HP Spectre x2 12 vs. Fujitsu Stylistic Q665
Allen Ngo, 2016-02-24 (Update: 2018-05-15)
Allen Ngo
Allen Ngo - US Editor in Chief
After graduating with a B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics from the University of California, I studied reactor physics to become licensed by the U.S. NRC to operate nuclear reactors. There's a striking level of appreciation you gain for everyday consumer electronics after working with modern nuclear reactivity systems astonishingly powered by computers from the 80s. When I'm not managing day-to-day activities and US review articles on Notebookcheck, you can catch me following the eSports scene and the latest gaming news.