Razer Blade -- Discuss

no thanks razer guys, i only need one hand to carry my rig. and surely i won't throw my money in the drain with a price tag like that. geez.

 

thing is it's a luxury item, same like this one Luxury Mobile Phones - Luxury Smartphones :: Vertu (this is the luxury company by nokia btw)

which sells highly overpriced products with minimal features. people will still buy those the same way people still buy $5,000 hand bags.

and those kind of people doesn't have time to tinker around specs or max settings or 1080p resolutions, they'll buy it for what it is and how it can be "flaunted" to other people.

shallow, vain and sad but there will still be "gamers" buying it.

 

I'll be watching sales. Although Razer is a private company I believe, so you will only get what they tell you sales are, not real numbers.

 

I am convinced that no one wants a <s> well-designed</s> over priced laptop that will probably have cooling issues due to its form factor.

 

Now I have seen it all!

This Luxury Mobile Phones - Luxury Smartphones :: Vertu

That is outrageously priced. Really? $573,374.30 for a dang phone? It's a sad day in the world when people are actually buying these considering everything else that is going on.

 

No, they won't. Anyone that actually does spend money on this farce will return it once they realize that this "gaming" PC that they dropped nearly 3K on won't play BF3 on medium settings at 1080P. The luxury gaming notebook market is already well covered. The superluxury "gaming" notebook market doesn't exist.

It is rare that I see a product that I can't envision ANY market for. This is one of them.

 

I can see a market for it. It will be bought by the gamers that are hooked on mmorpg's like WoW and only play them. The one's that don't need maxed out graphics, but want something that looks cool while they're sitting in an Internet Cafe or dorm rec room some place. The same one's that spend $90 on a WoW branded mouse that could be had for $45 without the branding are the ones that will buy this laptop. That's my opinion.

 

Still the issue exists about ergonomics. For games you can play with a touchpad, it will be fine, I guess. But everything else, it makes no sense.

 

$2800 is an ASTRONOMICAL amount of money. Someone that wants something that looks cool to play WoW on will buy an MBP.

 

Exactly. A 13-inch MBP with Intel HD graphics can play WoW fluently, even in OS X which has worse game performance than Windows.

 

For those that don't see it, the ONLY difference in this Blade is the touchscreen gadget on the right side. Everything else has been done before. Maybe it's a bit thinner, but not by much. To me you have much better options out there for $1500 less.

 

Its like they integrated an Optimus keyboard on it (which is also overpriced)

 

This is ridiculously expensive. You can get a an m17x r2 or p150 w/ a MBP 13-15inch with this money.

I dont know what went on in the R&D department of Razer to suggest that they go through with this...

 

yeah, i'm with most of you here...i just don't get this laptop. All style, no balls and about $1500 too expensive

 

Definitely agree with all the comments about it being overpriced and not very innovative, but I do still think they will be able to sell them. Not many at that price point, but they will get money from the mmorpg crowd that doesn't care about top of the line graphics but wants something that looks "gamey". They also will from the Razer fanboi's. Once they milk that crowd I think they'll drop the price to something more reasonable.

No different than Apple. MBP's are better than this is performance wise, but I don't think anyone will argue with me that they are also way overpriced but still sell in part because of fanboi's and those that are worried about the looks more than the performance.

This isn't meant to bash Apple as I realize they do have their strong points. Just making a comparison to the overpriced products of Apple still selling just as I think this will.

 

I'm sure they will sell some. But Apple has taken years to lock in their fan base and can demand a higher price point. It has taken years and years to get people in that mindset. Plus Apple do offer their own fairly secure OS and unique laptop designs. I do think Apple is overpriced, but by 15-20%, not by 100%.

 

Agreed and the Blade for its specifications and design and w/e vs. the MBP, the Blade is still MORE than a well-equipped MBP. That is saying something to how well the Blade is going to sell...

 

I'm not saying they won't sell any units at all. I'll be generous and say they'll move 50 units.

 

and get 50 refunds

 

Naw, there's at least 50 idiots with more money than sense. Sad to say they will probably sell at least a few hundred.

 

2.8GHz Intel® Core™ i7 2640M Processor
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 Memory
17.3" LED Backlit Display (1920x1080)
NVIDIA GeForce® GT 555M with NVIDIA® Optimus™ Technology
2GB Dedicated GDDR5 Video Memory
Built-in HD Webcam
Integrated 60Wh Battery
256GB SSD
Wireless Network 802.11 b/g/n Compatible
16.81" (Width) x 10.9" (Depth) x 0.88" (Height); 6.97lbs (Weight)

$2799

---

Pros:

Amazing form factor
Lighter, slimmer, smaller than most "gaming" laptops
Innovative trackpad

Cons:

Just 2 core processor
555m is not so "high end" for gaming
Not possible to upgrade/customize
Battery not removable

---

All that said, where does everyone stand on this soon-to-hit-the-market laptop?

-ITF

 

Very overpriced and not worth it. I rather take a MacBook Pro for the price tag than the Blade retails for.

 

If its almost the same size and specs as a MBP 17, then why not go for the MBP 17? And with those both having the same specs as the m14x... I just dont know really, guess that depends on screen size preference though. Still, you can get a MBP 17 with the 6770M for less than 2700 right?

 

Wasn't there a thread already for this where people thought it was way too expensive?

can't seem to find it anymore.

 

There probably was, but there doesn't seem to be a single thread on the forum relating to the Blade anymore.


Expensive, yes. Overpaying, yes. Is anyone planning to buy one? Lead me through your thought process..

-ITF

 

The Official Thread (Note the typo):

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/606761-razor-blade.html

 

lol no wonder i couldn't find it.

 

I bought one from the first batch, set to arrive Wednesday. i will report my findings on the laptop, give you my input. Coming from an Alienware M17x 3D, M18x, and other gaming notebooks. Not expecting it to be anywhere near as powerful, but was eager for a portable 17" notebook that could handle most games.

 

Nice man, I am looking forward to hearing some peoples actual impressions, maybe some pictures, unboxing, benchmarks, whatever. I will also be very interested to hear about battery life. Also, what kind of warranty does it have? I can't find that information on the Razer site at all.

I was REALLY considering getting one, but I really wanted my next laptop to replace my desktop, and the 555m just isn't fast enough. I opted to get an M17x R3 instead, a few pounds heavier, a bit thicker, but the 580m is easily twice as fast as the 555m. Still, a big part of me wants the Blade, I think it is an extremely sexy laptop, and looks like it would compete with and even beat a Macbook pro in terms of style.

I am sure a lot of people will cry it is overpriced, but honestly it is cheaper than a competing Macbook, and is about the only PC laptop that can compete with Apple design.

 

It has a 1 year warranty but you can buy an extra year within 60 days I believe. I want to see how this 555m does compared to other notebooks running it. It has the 2GB GDDR5 Ram but dunno how high its clocked or anything vs. the M14x. If I'm not happy with it, may very well go back to alienware or even get a new Envy 15 with the 7690M (supposed to be faster than the 555m but we'll see).

 

Where can you get one?

I looked around but I couldn't see where I could buy it..

 

Nice, I actually had an Envy 17 3D, which had the 7690m XT, and it was really only a tiny bit faster than the 555m. The regular 7690m would probably be roughly the same, or with OCing a tiny bit faster, so it probably isn't a good solution if you are looking for beefier graphics.

 

Since Razer decided to make a 256 GB SSD standard, the Blade is not as bad a value. It'd be nice if they offered a lower-cost version with a traditional hard drive so users could upgrade on their own if they wish.

For the money, though, I'd rather have a 17-inch MacBook Pro. The Radeon 6770M and quad-core CPU will beat the Blade all day long. Its 1920x1200 screen is an added bonus.

Regardless, I would love to see an unboxing video/forum post. It'd be nice to get a view of the system outside Razer's PR gallery.

 

A lot of the value will depend on exactly which SSD they used. If it something like a Samsung 830 or Intel 510 then it is an excellent value. If it is an old SATA2 or off brand then that would be a bummer.

The Macbook would not beat the Blade reliably. The 6770m is a weaker card, you can check the Futuremark charts, but the 6770m is definitely weaker than the 555m. The CPU can go either way, for many/most tasks the higher clock speed and higher turbo of the duel core will actually outperform a slower clocked quad. The quad is only going to win in multitasking or apps designed for many cores.

Of course the whole point of the Blade is gaming, and in that respect the Mac is not even competition.

 

The 555M in the Blade is the 128-bit GDDR5 version, not the 192-bit SDDR3 one Alienware uses in the M14x. The higher memory bandwidth is capped by the lower fillrate and number of CUDA cores.

GeForce GT 555M

Install Windows via Boot Camp and there is no game the Blade can run that the Mac cannot.

 

That is disappointing, I did not realize they used the lower end card. That just doesn't make much sense, especially when the Blade is powering a 17 inch 1080p screen versus the M14x smaller and lower res screen.

I still wouldn't say Macs can game competently, just based on my friends experience. They seem to get poor performance in boot camp, overheating issues when gaming, and very few native games. I go to quite a few LAN parties and an overwhelming number of college students use Macbooks, and they always have trouble at the events, even running games like Starcraft 2 that are native. But since I don't like OS X I don't own a Mac and cannot speak from first hand experience.

 

It's evident from just by seeing their hardware.. The 6770m is practically the best GPU they have ever used in a mac.

The GT 330 in the previous generation Macs are seriously weak for gaming.

Add that to the poor thermal threshold for Macs with weak cooling, and you get super-throttling CPUs and underclocked entry GPUs that seriously detract from the gaming experience...

 

I have got to jump in and fight my macs corner!

Yes, they may have had heat issues, but the 2011 mbp's are great for gaming in bootcamp. now out of the box they run hot in bootcamp due to poor fan control from apple but at least you can easily manually control the fans.
I leave the fans a 4k in windows and it cools well without being noisy (unlike my old m14x)

Also the 6770 is a great clocker plus undervolts well. I benchmarked it against the m14x 555m and with both overclocked (ati - 800/1000 nvidia 780/1050) they were within 5-10% of each other depending on game

 

Poor performance is more likely down to the hardware being used. Any MacBook/MacBook Pro made in 2010 or earlier does not have the chops to game adequately. Prior to the current-generation Radeon 6750/6770 GPUs, the best Apple had on offer was a rather weak GeForce GT 330.

You are absolutely correct that Macs are not designed as gaming machines. However, the current crop of MacBook Pros are far better at gaming than any Apple notebook to date. The games I have that are native to Mac OS (Half-Life 2, Portal, Portal 2, CoD Modern Warfare) run fluidly at native resolution, high settings, with max anti-aliasing. I realize these titles are old, but given the generally poor quality of Mac OS ports, I'm more than pleased with how they run.

Same goes for stuff I run on the Windows side. No, I can't max out every game, but no notebook with similar specs will be able to do the same either. Crysis plays quite adequately at 1440x900 with mostly high settings. Same deal for Batman: AA and AC and many others.

The Mac has inferior specs for its price, but it's surprisingly capable as a gaming machine despite not being marketed as such.

The Blade has inferior specs for its price, but it is marketed as a gaming machine. That's what makes it disappointing. I certainly appreciate Razer wanting to do something original and build a machine from the ground up. After all, they could have simply slapped their name on a Clevo or MSI chassis and punted it out the door. Since they did it the way they did, they have to charge an (IMO) exorbitant price premium to recoup the manufacturing and marketing costs. It's not as if they can do the console thing of selling hardware at a loss while making up the revenue in game and accessory sales.

Edit: Here's another thing that bugs me about the Blade: NVIDIA Optimus. I've used about half a dozen notebooks with this "technology" and I could never get it work correctly 100% of the time. Automatic graphic switching is fine in theory, but in practice it leaves a lot to be desired. I hate feeling like I'm not in control of that particular aspect of my computer. Some business-class notebooks have the ability to disable Optimus via the BIOS; why isn't this offered on consumer-level machines? Sony does it right by having a physical switch on many of their machines to go between the integrated and discreet GPUs. HP also stepped up in a big way by offering Pavilion and Envy owners an updated BIOS allows for fixed mode switching either on command or when the machine is plugged/unplugged.

Now if the Blade does offer such a feature in the BIOS or software to allow manual switching, Razer deserves props.

The MacBook Pro has automatic graphic switching, but 1) it only occurs in OS X (in Windows only the Radeon GPU is active), 2) it actually works properly and seamlessly, and 3) someone created a program that allows you to perform a manual switch if you want. It's not perfect but for the vast majority of users/uses, it's just fine.

The Radeon 6750 and 6770 are hardly "entry" GPUs. Underclocked, yes, but more than adequate for the vast majority of games. I have zero issues with throttling either. The machine gets quite loud, there's no doubt about that, but the CPU is still operating within its thermal bounds.

 

Sorry, I meant that the 330's were entry GPUs.

The 6770m are quite decent for gaming.

 

The same exact thing can be said for current Optimus. For 95% of users and uses it is completely seamless and wonderful. You can manually select which GPU for programs to use, and many/most gaming laptops enable you to use an unlocked bios and shut off Optimus if you so desire.

I know at least some of the people I have seen with Mac issues had 2011 models, because the computers were brand new a few months ago and they were extremely excited about being able to actually game on the 6770.

Anyway, I don't think anyone but a serious Mac supporter could recommend a Mac if you enjoy gaming. The Mac will run $$$$ more than a competing laptop, perform worse, and is nothing but worse than a competing gaming laptop. There are so many better choices in the PC space than a Mac. Maybe the Blade is not perfect but it is still awesome (the extra screen and customizable keys, impossibly thin, and just because it is different and unique). You could also go with an Envy with 7690m if you need the form factor. A Samsung Series 7 Gamer which is releasing with a GTX 660m in a few months is kind of the middle ground of form and function. Or of course the 800-pound gorilla in the gaming laptop space, Alienware, a few pounds more, a bit thicker, but the M17x R3 gets 6+ hours of battery running 580m/6990m graphics and top of the line hardware at more than $1000 less than a similar Macbook with 6770.

EDIT: And while I agree the Blade is on the wrong end of the value/price continuum it still seems like a much better value than a Mac. A similarly specced Macbook 17 would run around $3200 base, and about $3400 with boot camp and Windows to game and would not come with the extra screen/touch pad or the the OLED customizable keys, not to mention that spec is with the lower end Quad, which will be noticeably slower than the duel core in the majority of applications. A $600 Apple tax seems a bit excessive, especially when we are already comparing it to one of the most expensive PC laptops out there. The Blade may not be perfect but it is pretty sweet, and still a better value than anything Apple offers.

 

And you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.

O RLY? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Or $1000 less than the Blade, and all of the above you mention will run circles at various speeds around it (and the Mac as well).

You do know that the original plan was to launch the Blade with a standard hard drive at the same $2800 price point, right? So that's roughly $350-400 (depending on the drive they use) in additional content without a corresponding price increase.

 

Actually the Envy 17 would be roughly the same price as the Blade with similar specs, and it is the most similar laptop. We don't know prices for the Samsung, and the Alienware would probably be as much as $600 less than the Blade, while being over $1200 less than the Mac. The Blade is certainly expensive, but you are paying for the design and the SwitchBlade UI. It is not nearly as overpriced as Apple.

I also wouldn't say those other computers with a similar form factor will "run circles" around the Blade. It will be interesting to see actual benchmarks, the other laptops might be faster, but I don't think it will be by a very large margin, it will be interesting to see.

If they had not added the SSD then the Blade would be MUCH more overpriced than it is, as you said they added another $400 in value. With the SSD it is a reasonable price when you consider the form factor and extra features. Without the SSD it is even more overpriced than Apple products.

 

Where did this fight come from.... guys. Keep it cool.

----

The GT 555m 2GB version with its 128bit interface is said to be crippled. This should be similar to the version Lenovo used in the Y series, where even compared to the 14" Alienware m14x it lagged behind by a lot.

Regardless of the 256GB SSD(aren't even sure if it's SATA II or SATA III), the blade seems to be overpriced head-to-head when compared even with MBPs, and the MBPs actually excel in raw hardware power..

I am sure Razor folks are trying to push the price with the light-up function pads and give a premium look, but simply put I really don't see how they put up such a weak GPU that is aimed for the best of gamers.. They will certainly get disappointed when they find out the lack of the ability to run modern games in high settings at native res.

I think this will backfire at Razor very easily.

 

I think a smarter move would have been for Razer to release the Blade as a 14-inch system. They could keep the same GPU, CPU, and SSD being used now, but pair them with a 1600x900 screen and a $1500 price tag. Then launch the Switchblade pad as a separate peripheral, giving users the choice of USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt, which would make it compatible with pretty much any recent Windows or Mac (as Razer has done with most of its mice). Price it at $100-150 when purchased with a Blade and $200-250 (or whatever price point is necessary to turn a decent profit) for anyone else who wants it.

 

at any rate, mine shipped out today, should arrive tomorrow. Please keep the whining/complaining to a minimum and I'd be happy to answer some questions and post pics.

 

I think it is only a matter of time before people realize how suckered they got into knowing the GPU. It sounds amazing on paper but in reality, it gets destroyed by even a MBP GPU.

I know some people will have brought the Blade for other reasons and can hold a good case on why their purchase was justified, however I have a feeling most will feel they got gipped though...

 

I really look forward to this, thanks John.

I assume the discussion will continue in this thread, right?

Definitely keep us posted!

 

Looking forward to it, it will be awesome to see actual impressions and pictures.

I just don't understand where this idea that the Blade will get "destroyed" comes from. A few FPS difference is not "destroyed" and that is all you are gonna find with any laptop in a similar form factor. I also question if even the latest MBP can run games like BF3 and Skyrim, Razer has shown the Blade running both games in 1080P on high settings with stable FPS. A quick look around the internet shows lots of Mac owners complaining of BF3 performance, as in they get 20 FPS with stutering on low settings and low resolution on their shiny new Macbook 17.

I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that bootcamp hurts performance. So while the 6770 might be somewhat faster, it is gonna lose performance emulating, so it probably evens out or even comes out slower than running games natively. A google search for people playing games in bootcamp reveals lots and lots of issues.

The Blade is what it is, it is certainly not a value machine, but you are still getting a lot more for your money than buying anything by Apple. It is a very cool machine, it should perform well enough, and it has an amazing form factor, especially considering the hardware it packs.

 

I received some very disappointing news from Razer today.

My response, as well as a quote from an earlier email:

---

Another quote of interest: