Razer Blade Pro 17" (1080 GPU/late 2016) Owner's Lounge

15W what?

A whole system idling takes 5-6 W top and the screen itself should take 15?

 

Idling with a lower brightness yes. Full brightness 4K can take up to 15watt if I read correctly.

Systems that run at idle with only 5 watts are the typical core M etc systems.

 

My RB14 2015 runs at 7W idle, surely with min brightness which is still around 280 nit.

It's a 3200x1800 screen, IGZO, pretty close to the RBP one (it's about pixels rather than display size, so they can be at least compared).

Not to mention that a 4720HQ burns more power than a new processor, so you could guess how limited it the power drain from other parts.

 

Where do you get thos enumbers from?

If your system needs only 7w at idle it could run up to 8.5hour son the 60w/h battery supplied by the Razer Blade. Which is by far doesnt. YOur CPU alone might use 7w at idle but definitely not the whole system.

Systems that run at idle with only 7 watts are the typical core M etc systems.

A simple fullhd panel alredy needs 5.4watt. http://www.panelook.com/LP156WF6-SPB1_LG Display_15.6_LCM_parameter_24180.html

Cant find recent datasheets of the Igzo panels. But the higher the pixels, the more bright the backlight has to be because it is harder to shine through the transistor grid. It really takes a lot more, then also a lot more processing power is needed etc. Still less than 300watt is really pushing it with a 1080GTX and a 6700HQ. You cannot get around that. NVME drives times 2 take a fair bit and are just 2 full PCI express devices.

 

I get it from aida64, Microsoft store tool which gets me battery health as well as a few more reads as well.

It does last that much tbh, closed it with no hibernation nor anything else got me 9+ hours once, when I forgot the pc like that.

As of now I'm reinstalling Ubuntu, once I'll get back home later on I'll try to provide a SS, but it should be easily replicable as long as you don't let trash processes load up on boot and just sit there doing nothing with min CPU speed set a a few units % with every power saving setting turned on.

 

Razer Blade 2016 with 1060 use average 14w in idle. A maxed Razer Pro 17" probably more. Regardless... 250w psu for laptops with 1080 is a crazy mans work. Even with the low powered 6700hq. Crippling the 1080 performance to fit in Apple design and 250w psu is hilarious or madness. Put in what's fits!! You can't expect both... Fully performance from your expensive hardware and max thinness!! 1080 who can't do much better than OC'd lower powered 1070 is rather extreme!! Would you want it in your desktop as well?

 

I measured 7.6 watts at idle with the razer blade 14. Usually I get 10ish with the quad cores but that one was pretty lean with power consumption. It's certainly possible this one is similar.

You're right about the components consuming power, but keep in mind that since ultrabooks came out a few years ago, the push has been towards more efficient components for power savings. When not in use, components such as the SSD use practically no power now. Also, the screens are better than ever(with the backlight turned down of course)


Edit: thinking a little more on this, I can see the skepticism considering there's no optimus. I'm honestly not sure how efficient the 1080 is at idle. It probably isn't all that efficient otherwise why have optimus at all right?

 

If it uses 14 it's not tweaked properly, that's barely 3 hours of battery, while people get 6, just like with 2016 v1 and 2015...

+1 Derek712

 

Tested by Notebookcheck review. Same procedure like they do with other models. Bigger screens and more hardware will always use more power than a flimsy small 14 inches notebook. None should be happy for gimped down 1080 graphics in any computer. I expect you know why Razer had to do it this way. Run Heaven and OCCT or Aida64 with only stress FPU Simultaneous and see what will happen with 250W psu. The processor can do other tasks in the background when you gaming. And the psu and the cooling should handle this without any problems. Same time as well should the psu manage to recharge a empty battery and power all external hardware plugged into your laptop!!

 

They test stuff out of the box, not to minimize consumption, can't get what your point is with this.

 

MSI Afterburner OC:
Core Clock : +195mhz
memory Clock: +123mhz

Fire Strike ultra
Score: 4819.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16713876

i'll try increasing more and test it when i have time.

 

Did you turn off gsync?

It might end up being your nemesis if you are aiming to high benchmark scores, as it limits your max fps to match your display refresh rate.

 

One of my grad school classmates is contemplating this notebook and I'm very skeptical. I've been reading the past 10 pages of posts and seen some reviews of the blade pro. From my perspective, I've been seeing a lot of conflicting statements (reviews say the GPU is great and performs as expected but it's these posts on this forum that seem to indicate something is amiss). I'm very curious about how well the GPU performs. Should I assume that there's a degree of downgraded performance in this notebook's GPU and that achieving desktop performance with it would require some tweaking?

 

Every ODM/OEM's can put up the max TDP they want for Pascal graphics. All depends on what cooling and power management they have designed for their laptops Eg Clevo rate 1080 for 200W.

 

No amount of tweaking will ever get near desktop performance, the cooling is just not built for it.

this notebook would have been better suited to a 1070, they are saying "hey look we manged to get a 1080 in here!!" so we justifiably charge the serious price..... what they are not saying is "we gimped the 1080 so bad it barely runs any faster than slightly overclocked 1070"

great form factor adn design though.....

got to remember most if not all the early reviews will be cherry picked samples sent to "selected" reviews, I'm just gonna leave that there.

 

It's running better than 3rd in place (OCed score wise) 1070 in firestrike top scores, I wouldn't call it a "slightly overclock".

It's surely lower than expected, but I don't see the reasons to make it look worst than it is.

 

ok I see you point never the less as you say "It's surely lower than expected"

I thought with your past experience with razer you would be the last person to defend them, lol joking

 

Would you be happy with your brand new expensive water-cooled 1080 graphics in your home build desktop rig if the graphics couldn't run better than your brothers cheap oc'd 1070? Wouldn't you feel you are screwed?

 

I'm trying to be as objective as I can be, to be honest eheh

I wouldn't ever buy one of their systems, ever, since I can't really be without a RMAed notebook for 10% of the time, but still i believe the company has his pros, and their notebook might be of value to some.

I'm just trying to make up my mind with a final personal judgment, based on people opinion obviously

@Papusan: that's not what you are buying, if you wanted bang for the bucks you'd have gone with MSI bricks.

This notebook is at this price tag mostly cause of extras, like the keyboard, screen, mousepad, exterior and such.

 

Geez.... it's a great laptop with great features and build quality. If all I cared about was gpu score and wanted cheap I'd get an Asus strix or something (great budget laptop).

 

But why in hell use 1080 graphics in the machine if you can't use the fully power from it? Milk you or pure fraud? If the machine had been delivered with 1070, couldn't Razer charge you the hideous high price. This is pure milking Same as buy a Porche with vw Passat engine. Nice design but forget run max expected speed on the autostrada or compete in racing with similar Porche with normal engine

 

This 1080 is still better than any stock 1070 and of 95% of OCed ones, you are making it look like it's a GTX 960M with your kind of metaphors.

 

Thought the dave2d review was great.

 

He skipped all of the actual performance metrics.

 

Wow, such explosive commentary since I've been gone. To score some highlights from the last few pages:

1) Blade Pro 17" is going to use a little more than the 14" because Having a G-sync enabled panel means no switchable graphics. Probably also what's responsible for the lower battery life [it'll do 3.5 easy if you set your profiles right, and let's face it: nobody is buying this thing as an all day ultrabook.

2: Of course if I bought a desktop 1080 [and I did] and it performed like a 1070 I would be upset: But my desktop isn't small enough to throw in a backpack and take on a two week business trip. There are trade-offs to go with a mobile form factor. It really appears as though the thermal cap is just set low to prevent the entire cooling solution from heat soaking as they're both tied together. Honestly though, a lot of the complaining seems more like "sour grapes"... but that's pure speculation on my part.

And again: when official Nvidia driver support arrives [Razer support says "this month" (tm) ] we should expect to start seeing gradual improvements to performance. Like everything, YMMV.

And to update, my machine is back in Razer's hands. We'll see if they agree with me, but HoTS is a very "up and down" performance kinda game. My best suspicion at this time is that, when it's reigning in voltage after a performance spike, voltage is slipping way too far, causing the random shutdowns. I spent 5 days and 3 reinstalls [including a Windows 10 DVD] install and could consistently duplicate the issue with the ship drivers, the Razer drivers, and the 376.X modded drivers [not the just released ones, the ones before that]

 

How are the thermals/scores for this razer with 1080? I've been a bit out of the loop for this particular notebook.

 

Thermals are pretty good. About 70C ish.
Performance however is like an OCd 1070. Scores 18XXX graphics points in Firestrike Standard.

 

Thanks for the super fast response!

18k? A bit surprising. I was expecting more around 20k. But with recent drivers this is even around stock 1070 right? Hmm, is it power limited then? I was actually surprised when I re-ran my GT80 stock for comparison and ended up scoring 19.5K on graphics. It used to score 18k.

Well, even if power limited, it does have more memory bandwidth.

How is this comparing to the Aorus? Both seem to compete in the thin market with 1080s. Although this one is only packing a 6700HQ.

 

Yeah same. From what i have been able to gather, the card is TDP limited to 160W. I am yet to see this one touch 19k.

Aorus are maybe 5-10% better. But not by too much, at least not in games. Main thing it comes down to, is the justifiable cost. At least for me, the Auros cost is much more reasonable IMO, keeping in mind the form factor.
Also the Auros comes with a 6820HK , with more RAM and the option to add even more if the need be.
Sure there is the nice body and the kinda mechanical keyboard, just not enough fluff for the $4k+ price point.

 

Aorus X7 DT v6 with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 = Fire Strike graphics score 21928 Points. A heaven of difference between 18XXX graphics points in Fire Strike from Razer vs. almost 22000 from Aorus.
Aka Double-digit difference and not only 5-10%better.

 

Ah my bad. The one I referenced to might have been running with gsync enabled.

 

The good news about buying a Razer Blade Pro looks like you'd be able to sell it easily with little or no loss. That's always a nice aspect and probably something that isn't nearly as heavily considered as it ought to be.

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MQDPYZ...ook0e-20&ascsubtag=pfb-P08-V01-O3-KNYDII&th=1 looks like amazon has it in stock with prime shipping if anyone is interested

 

here is some test footage with GTA V , settings shown in video. MSi afterburner is on for anyone wondering

 

firestrike 1.1
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11105509

score 14010 with little oc.

 

Damn nice, what was the OC? Also what setting are you running in NVCP?

 

Nice!

 

But remember HQ is High Quality. Right?

That's why they put this in a $4000 laptop with a 250W brick. That makes the most sense I think... I want High Quality. Thanks Intel for the HQ series.

 

used msi afterburner , core clock +175 / mem clock +50, no change in nvcp, just disabled gsync.

the below score from alienware 17 1070 gtx 2016, 13987 score.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11090267

 

For informational purposes only, but an OC'ed 1070 is walking circles around some stock 1080's out there in the wild.

Here's my GTX 1070.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11011925


I really like the Razer Pro...really do, but that 6700HQ is an insult to me IMO. It's one thing to try and be Apple with the design (complete rip) and pricing, but when Razer has to do this at the expense of putting in a crippled GTX 1080 to justify the $4000 price tag...that's a tough thing to just brush off... Then to include a 6700HQ is insult to injury.

There are a lot of things that I like about the Razer Pro, but the doom that ruins it all for me is the CPU and handicapped GPU.

However, this is just the beginning and there could be some surprises in the future. It's nice to always have something to look forward to....but remember to enjoy what you currently have too haha...as there is value in that as well.

 

early adopters.

 

This thread has become useless...

 

Why so good sir?

For people who do not care about the limited performance, this thread will at least give them info about the cooling system, keyboard, base performance, screen etc.

 

Things pick up as there are more users around. Even if some come look down upon the machine, it is because the machine istself has earned it. No one is saying it looks bad, or that its build quality is terrible etc, they merely point out at the limited nature, because such info is also very important for owners and future owners.

Personally, I do believe they might have been better off with a GTX1070, but in the end, the GTX1080 even if power limited, does have more memory bandwidth which might help a bit more with the included panel.

As for the keyboard/touchpad, it reminds me of my GT80. Mechanical keyboard with a lateral touchpad. I actually liked the placement, but I ended up missing the numpad keys.

 

Actually yeah. It did quite feel like the Steelseries version on the MSI laptops, from a while back. Either ways, it felt great.

 

Call me a Skeptic but everything Razer has done in 2014 and up has been Marketing Marketing Marketing. For better or for worst this company markets more then Alienware, which is a crazy thought when you think about it or Dalienware for the matter. The 1080 GTX just markets better, alot of gamers actually are not hardware fanatics like your typical notebookreview user as they just want to play their games and if their system has a 1080 in it, it just gives them peace of mind or something, even if it were a Placebo affect. What I'm saying is that Gamers know 1080 vs 1070, but they aren't actually benchmarking their systems and reading the numbers as long as they can play their games and get reasonable FPS they're pretty happy, and it's scary to see what amount of coin they're willing to drop for that.

I don't blame anyone here, it's just an observation I have on both the gaming community, the company and the system.

 

You will facepalm hard if you see some of the reviews on Amazon for the same notebook. Problem is the lack of knowledge.

 

Part of this is true, but there are also a large number of those users that then ask questions "Why can't I get XX fps in YYY game, when here they do?" and then post a youtube video of the desktop oc'd GTX1080 completely clueless.

Nvidia also dropped the ball by allowing weaker versions of their cards to appear with the same name.

 

THIS. The moment someone drops the TDP this much, it is no longer a desktop class GPU.

 

could you post screenshot of your nvcp? i changed somestuff up haha