Razer Blade -- Discuss

i just read the last 5 pages for info and all i'm finding are the same few regurgitating the same negativity.

we get it. you don't like the price. this laptop isn't for you.

do those of us who are interested in the machine for what it is a solid and stop posting if its more of the same QQ'ing about the price/specs ratio. this way people don't have to wade through a sea of repetetive posts looking for relevant info.

 

No, but many do list dual band functionality, and for something marketed as a "gaming" notebook, the target market would be interested in knowing that information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tip: There is an owner's lounge: http://forum.notebookreview.com/other-manufacturers/642913-razer-blade-owners-lounge.html

 

A few dozen or so pages ago, someone acknowledged that this laptop is overly-priced and that it is paired with a loaded claim of being the first true one of its kind. They also acknowledged that this is how it's always been and no big deal. . . buyers should and would do their research. They didn't see the point in the objections and some of the outrage.

Well, having that said, this thread, and the negativity in it, is exactly the place where novice buyers might end up -- in their research -- before they make an informed decision. Were it not for the regurgitating discussion of price-spec ratio or whatever, the whole point of research-driven and informed buyers would be greatly defeated. So instead of slamming the informed negativity -- that might help some individuals in not spending more money on something that might not live up to their expectation -- perhaps allow the genuine aspect of the free information work the way it is supposed to work.

It is an informative thread, and last time I checked, there is a thread on this very form to enjoy the merits of the machine. Why not consider that as an alternative avenue for information while allowing the present discourse to continue. The repetition will eventually pass if it isn't repeatedly condemned with one-sided logic, seeing as some decent points were brought up during the course of the 41 pages.

So that means that we get to continue having criticism, right? Because we can do whatever we want to do? I doubt that this is a one-way street.

 

My negativity actually had nothing to do with the price. It's marketed as a "gaming laptop" but it can barely game. It gets pretty terrible battery life when not plugged in so it's not really "mobile" either. What's the point of paying a premium for something if it can't even do what it's marketed to do.

How many times do you game on battery life without a mouse? I can't remember the last time I have, maybe for 15 minutes while waiting for an airplane 3 years ago. The fact is most "gaming laptops" are meant for being that travel a lot, but want to still be able to play games while in a hotel room, office, ect.

For that I would much rather have my M18X which was about $1000 less (irrelevant if not bringing up price), but more importantly can actually play games at acceptable settings, 60fps, and 1080p. I highly doubt the Razerblade can even play moderately demanding games on medium, ~40fps, 1080p.

The Razerblade isn't for gamers, but for people with too much money who want something niche, and might play the occassional game.

 

I was not aware that there were any owners lounge other than this, because I saw some "merging thread" yesterday or something. But doesn`t matter really, since you guys keep repeating yourself negatively. We get it.

@Kade storm: Shure, but it gets very frustrating to read the negativity after a while. And you guys are getting nowhere. But before you respond, "you don`t have to read the thread", I`m gonna say "I`m out. Do whatever you want" (see what I did there?)

Cheers

 

Just go use the owners lounge, the trolls are not allowed over there. We can just let this thread die, it is totally useless for pretty much any constructive purpose, I realized that about the third time someone made the "LOL they only sold like 50" joke. Just a bunch of people spouting ignorance and misinformation who don't actually own or have any experience with the laptop, and are probably too poor to ever get one anyway, thus not part of the target market.

 

Nice generalisation.

So that's how I was going to respond? Well I'm stumped. I totally didn't think I would respond like that, but clearly your assumption and cut-off take precedence.

Cheers.

Yeah.

 

BF3 all high 1080P at over 30 FPS according to IGN.

Skyrim high settings at 1080P over 30 FPS according to an owner.

Nope, can't game at all I guess, I wonder if it even has a video card since it just totally can't play the newest demanding games at 1080p and high settings.

Face it guys, this laptop will play any current game at high settings in 1080p just fine, except for perhaps The Witcher 2.

 

Care to share the link to IGN that shows that? Only thing I can find is the brief unboxing video from yesterday (2/3).

 

"I was able to play a brief session of Battlefield 3. At 1920x1080 at high settings, the system ran smoothly at well over 30 frames per second with no slowdown."

Razer Blade Hands-on - IGN

 

Look, don't go down to the performance fight. It's a loosing battle. You will only get answers of much more powerful systems, cheaper, running said games much better. Just ignore those comments, performance was not the main thing in the razer, it was just equipped with enough hardware to work, not really outperform anything.

example...the GT555m is a medium range card. Sure it's capable, but it's already struggling to maintain those 30fps, as I can assure you, you won't get sustained 30fps at all. Hell, even I get dips below that, and I have much more powerful card.

 

I am pretty sure the Razer is the fastest thin and light 17 inch available right now. Before it was released there was talk that it would have a much slower 555m and thus be slower than something like a Macbook 17 or HP Envy 17, but the 555m is actually one of the fastest available, and can OC even higher. It should be the same or faster than anything similar that is currently available.

Obviously if you disregard weight and thickness then you can find something more powerful, but it wouldn't prove anything that isn't obvious. The bigger and heavier you go the faster it will run. In its class the Razer looks like a very clear winner (so like among laptops that are less than 1.3 inches thick, 17 inches, and reasonably light), especially in terms of gaming, but really even overall, there is a video in the owners lounge of actually using the Switchblade UI, and it looks extremely useful and awesome.

 

Since when is 30fps acceptable? I didn't realize we were gaming on consoles. Most people serious about gaming tweak their systems to average 60fps. So if the Blade is getting almost 30 stable on "high" settings it probably won't hit 60fps until dropped to medium-low or low.

 

It may not be the most powerful, but this machine is definitely the most sexy. I absolutely love that display trackpad and LCD keys in place of the worthless numpad. If the next revision comes around and actually has decent hardware then I might be tempted.

 

You know, I actually don't like the looks that much, even tho I think the style is getting there. But in the end beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and if the specs were better, it would surely be a winner.

They actually should have waited a bit more to launch, I'd say the newer 28nm GPUs and new Ivy bridge would have helped their goal of very thin.

 

If you want 60 FPS all the time then you shouldn't be getting a laptop, and certainly not a thin and light like the Blade. I bet your 12 pound land monster M18x (which is thicker and heavier than 2 Blades stacked on top of each other) can't even get 60 FPS on every game (The Witcher 2 comes to mind), while a $1500 desktop won't have any trouble ($500 GPU, $1000 on the rest, you could get a 7970 and a nice i5 or i7 for that price). There are always sacrifices, for some it would be worth losing some FPS to get a thin and light gaming laptop. You had reasons to buy a 12 pound laptop rather than just a desktop which would have provided double the performance at half the price. I had reasons for going in the middle and getting an M17x.

There is really no reason to try and act elitist and scoff at 30 FPS, it is a perfectly acceptable frame rate and the Blade will still look FAR better than any console.

 

Actually I haven't had a game yet that I couldn't play on ultra settings with 60fps locked, however, I have not specifically tried the Witcher 2 on this machine. Your argument that 30 fps is acceptable is simply invalid. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is enormous. While 30fps is "playable" for single player games, it's definitely not for even any semi-competitive online play.

If I can't hit 60fps maxed then I simply drop the settings. The difference between Ultra and High is quite minimal, but dropped to medium or low is a much large gap than the latter. My argument against the Blade is that in order to hit 60fps stable it'll likely be on low settings which is essentially console grade quality (although obviously with a higher framerate).

 

. . .and we've lost the plot.

If it is running Battlefield 3 at even medium with full resolution and sustaining that rate then I must say it has surpassed console performance by a decent margin. Although to be fair, the 555m -- while seen as midrange -- is still a decent piece of GPU hardware that does dwarf what is on offer by the present consoles.

 

Sounds like a massive dose of opinion to me. I never worry about FPS, and often jack up image quality to the max even if it lowers the FPS significantly. If I can get at least 30 FPS with vSync on then I don't care, and can't honestly tell the difference. And my argument isn't invalid, it is my opinion, it is not possible for it to be "invalid" since there is no right or wrong answer. What you really meant to say is that for you 30 FPS is not acceptable, that only applies to you or people who feel the same way, it is not a universal truth. In fact the opposite is true, the mainstream generally considers 30 FPS a good standard, and games like Rage that aimed for 60 FPS stood out because of a higher than normal frame rate.

Your argument against the Blade applies only to you, it not a universal truth that everyone requires 60 FPS or will hate gaming. Thus, you shouldn't buy the Blade, but that says nothing about other people buying it. I would never buy or be satisfied with the M18x, thus I did not buy one, that should mean nothing in terms of your satisfaction with your M18x. The same idea applies here, you don't want a Blade, good for you, it is still an amazing product for the people that value what it offers. You clearly don't since you purchased the exact opposite to the Blade, the biggest heaviest laptop out there, and that is fine.

 

The target market would be interested, but hardly any manufacturers other than perhaps Sager tells you some information, and that's only because the laptops are user-customisable. Non user-customisable laptops generally don't tell you this info.

 

Totally agree with Yoda, And 30fps IS the competitive gaming standard that began with games like Counterstrike. Also the reason people think 30fps is "unacceptable" is the fact that if your fps dips to say 20 you can notice the difference and it will get choppy. so in games when you usually get 60 fps and the fps dips you wont notice. if your fps is completely constant then the difference between 30fps and 60fps is minimal. i'm not sayin there is no difference, but that the difference between 20 and 30 is much larger than 30-60. PS From what i remember HD movies are played at 24 fps. tho some cgi heavy movies are played at 30. (can someone confirm this?).

 

Let's not get into 24 fps vs 30 fps again.

Film runs at 24 actual physical frames, but due to motion blur it isn't noticeable. Digital switching is different and is based on each person's sensitivity to the frame change. Some people 30 fps is fine, for others 60 seems to be the maximum threshold most people can tell a difference.

I'm ok with 30 fps, and even 25 fps, depending on the game.

 

30 fps has never been the competitive standard. In terms of mouse movement, the difference between 30 fps and 60+ is huge, so it has always been 60 minimum for games like CS, quake, even starcraft.

 

If you want >60fps on a 17" laptop, get a Sager. If not, get the Blade.

 

I dont get why Razer does comparisons to Alienware when obviously this is meant to be a competitor to a Macbook pro 17. I understand the marketing but for some reason it almost seems deceitful to me or something. Its like if I made a MBA competitor but my entire campaign was that it was thinner than a MBP or something, if that makes sense.

 

I don't think they would have had much success comparing it to the Macbook Pro for gaming comparisons even if at the end of the day the hardware/specs are similar. Even then the Macbook Pros have Quadcores standard, at least the 15 and 17s do .

I think Alienware was just an easy target since it is more or less a household name .

Comparing it to the R3 or the M18x would probably not be the wisest decision but honestly these are so radically different they should not compare it to anything and just let it stand on its own.

I love the idea of the Razer Blade, but the price is just so outta bounds, for me at least, that it is something i certainly am interested in reading and hearing about but will never own.

 

Let's cool it down in here. I think everyone's ready to admit that the Blade is not the best bang-for-your-buck FPS-cranking game machine.

But it's not meant to be. If you guys are going to keep beating this dead horse without any productive discussion, this thread will end up locked, so let's try to avoid that. Nothing useful to say about the Blade? Simply refrain from hitting Post Reply.

 

So is there going to be a Razer subsection in the notebook manufactures section?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

 

There already is one in Other Manufacturers. I just hope that people would keep their opinions about Blade in this thread and useful questions/input to another Some people already managed to scare off the sole owner of the Blade from this topic with their negativity, lets not do that again.

 

What is really strange to me is that the owner here with the blade seems to be the only one on the planet. There are zero reviews anywhere from owners other than john. Very strange to me.
I understand it was probably a very small batch of machines but the target market would be one that i would think would be blowing up the interwebs showing it off.

 

Right. It is more of an "enthusiasts" machine that I would expect more than one person from NBR to post about it, let alone anywhere else. IGN got ahold of one surprised they don't have early benchmarks or impressions yet. Their little blurb doesn't say any more than what has already been shown/told across the web, mainly the Razer marketing stuff.

 

Yeah, now that Im more awake I can elaborate. The Blade is alot more like the MBP 17 than the M17x r3 for example, yet on size comparisons they obviously show the r3. The blade almost is (spec-wise) a MBP 17 with a little faster GPU but a dual core CPU. I think its sort of unfair to Razer to then try to attack the original "gaming" laptop with a 580M/6990M that blows away the 555M. The right thing to do is to go against the obvious competitor, the MBP 17, but they refuse to do so because the MBP would sort of beat it. Disappointing in Razer that way. It may not be lying or anything, but it is to me.

 

i love how thin and sleek the blade is, if it were something like 1800USD then i would consider it. Even then I would be hard pressed to justify my purchase

 

I think that wording is somewhat important. You could call M17x a gaming notebook, while Razer is a gaming laptop.

 

laptop and notebook aren't good terms for differentiation.

to me, a notebook is smaller, if anything.

 

The terms "Laptop" and "Notebook" are interchangeable these days anyhow. It's all semantics and how the manufacturer decides to describe it.

 

I'm sure this has already been asked before but how the hell do you use those switchblade keys?

Does Razer really expect "hardcore" gamers to drop their mice for this touchpad? Even then you would have to take your hand off the pad to press the buttons....? They even throw in a pretty decent mouse (orochi) with the laptop.

I don't understand.....

 

Many of us are confused as well. Touchpad gaming is not very fun for most games. Having it on the left side would have made so much more sense and incorporate WASD type keys in there as well. I thought if anything the left four or five columns of keys should have just utilized the switchblade tech and act as regular keys that can be programmed for games, etc.

 

I don't think this is for hardcore gamers. This is for a very specific niche of people who I haven't quite pinpointed yet. I think most hardcore gamers in this price range would opt for high end hardware, easily attainable for under $2000, in the form the sager np8170 / clevo p170hm. Hardcore gamers would be looking for at least a 2nd gen intel i7 quad core, and a 6990m in that price range.

You also have the macbook pro 17 which is strikingly similar, except it has a significantly better processor and costs less.

I think it really comes down to that keyboard LCD. You have to fall in love with the keyboard LCD and be willing to sacrifice for it.

 

Spoiled 13-16yr kids with extremely rich parents? xD
Also i can see professional gamers sponsored by razer actually using it, its not that bad piece of a hardware, to use in conjunction with your desktop.

Razer distributor in my country didnt want to replace my Razer Naga that broke after 3 days because i didnt keep the box.
Had to ask my lawyer friend to speak with them for few minutes. The whole story kinda rings the bell for me though.

 

Hehe, reminds me of this video. I think it`s going to be like this:

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OLuDWGiHiXU?version=3&amp;hl=nb_NO"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OLuDWGiHiXU?version=3&amp;hl=nb_NO" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='640' height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

They don't even use the switchblade keys ._.

And that nub is using hydras to counter roaches

 

Apparently you also can't use standard NVIDIA Verde drivers with the Blade, at least not according to this post. It looks like the drivers require a lot more modding than simply replacing the main .inf file with the appropriate device IDs.

 

And that's exactly what's gonna happen for most users. It will be "ooh, aah, cool", now where's my mouse. They should offer a 15" version without the Razer pad and drop the price $1000. The keyboard looks nice, and seems a solid package.

 

lol shure. Then it will not be a Razer. Just a normal average laptop that is a little bit thinner

 

That will probably sell loads more than the Blade.

 

Yeah, I think the first batch was like well under 1000 units.

It is surely a niche product and while it looks ok to me with all the features it offers, I won't be getting one for sure.

The funniest part is that Razer claimed "no gaming performance sacrifice" and "truly portable" and yet it's neither. Just because you can shove it in a briefcase doesn't mean it's truly portable, with up to 2 hours of battery life it's loses to my 9 year old ThinkPad R40 (which still got the original battery with its capacity slashed to 45% and getting 2.5hrs out of 5.5, hehe).

As for performance, it's even more ridiculous, no demanding game can be maxed out with gpu barely scratching the mid-range.

Still, it looks nice and may have some "gaming" features, gimmick or not. I'm sure, first adopters will be happy.

 

I have to admit that the Blade looks sleek, but I can't really see what I will use the touch pad for. It looks cool though.

 

Did someone confirm that it only has 2 hours of battery life while browsing on balanced settings? How is that possible? I thought it had Optimus.