Razer Blade Pro 2015

Hello,

Does anyone have an idea as to when the Razer Blade Pros 2015 will appear?

Dell slimmed down their Alienwares and other have done or will do the same. I know one reason could be their waiting on the Broadwell I7’s to appear. Could they also be readying a 4K 17 inch pro? If so and I am not mistaken it would be the 1st 17” 4k laptop. Also since USB 3.1 is here and from what I read will be appearing in products including laptops sometime around march or after that. Could they be waiting to introduce even slimmer gaming notebooks then the ones that are already out? If they come with USB 3.1 type C they be thinner due to that port size (such as what I am hearing about the 12 inch macbook air). Although I guess in Razer’s case if it has other ports (Ethernet, HDMI, etc) the thinnest would only go so far.

 

I wouldn't know anything about the external looks of the laptop, but I did find its potential specs.
Generic VGA video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-4720HQ,Gigabyte Blade

 

It appears that they're using a GTX 960M. Strange, I thought they'd go for a 970M. Perhaps they'll offer more than one model this time around...?

 

Its gonna be the same as the old models but different specs. But i suggest you buy MSI or alienware. Or maybe build a PC coz its more cheaper. Razer is ok but theyre overpricing them and making the sleek design a big deal than the specs itself.

 

Maybe the Razer Blade will have the GTX 970m.
The Pro was shafted on GPU power compared to the regular Blade. Seems like it'll happen again.

 

What was the logic behind making the Blade more powerful than the Blade Pro? It kinda made me mad how they did that.

 

Needed better GPU to push better framerate to the QHD+ screen.

 

Which was a joke because that GPU still wasn't anywhere near powerful enough to pull it off well in new AAA titles.

 

I have no solid idea, but it may be because the regular blade sold more than the blade pro when it first came out. "Make the Blade more appealing," they must have thought.

 

Have you found the specs for the 14 in razer blade?

 

Sadly no. My guess is as good as anybody.
You did post something that would help. The CPU. Looking at the base frequency of the CPU (2.4 GHz, not 2.6), the Blade 2015 should have an i7-4722HQ. The GPU will most likely by a GTX 970m. And that's about all I can guess.

 

I'm betting they will make them both 970m or the "Pro" a 960m and 14 a 970m. Or maybe even a 980m.

 

I almost in the mood to return my blade. I like the portability, but lack of a mini display port (which i always knew), is proving to be a major hindrance for me

 

I doubt they'll put a 980 in there. Not only would it be thermal suicide but even for Razer the price would be too high. And seen how well the 970m performs, there isn't much need for the 980m. It's not powerful enough to allow games to run at a considerably higher res than the 970m

 

It's really hard to believe that there is no high end gaming laptop with a 15.6 inch or smaller, thinner than an inch with 7+ hours of battery life out there. It would be perfect for a college gamer.

 

Not going to happen the 970m is a perfect card for both of those machines but if they don't put larger fans in there then it's a absolute pass. I had my razer blade for maybe 4 or 5 months and I had to sell it, it gets way to hot.. So hot I could cook food on it mix the heat with the terrible fan profiles it just is not convenient not to mention the qhd+ screen was nice but not really needed while the 870m delivered nice performance dpi scaling was annoying since a lot of common apps don't support uhd yet so a lot of apps where small or fuzzy. If thin is your niche then go with the msi gs70 pro better much much cheaper and better cooling

 

I'm not into looking for a new 17". 14" is fine for mobility. Hope the 2015 refresh has a DP.

 

MiniDP is a requirement for me. I'd hate to have to pass on a 2015 refresh due to a lack of MiniDP.

 

I really hope they *don't* try to put a 980m in there, will have heat issues again. Would be very happy with the 970m, which I understands runs a little cooler than the 870m, also I assume the next Blades will be Broadwell, which is meant to be less power hungry/heat generating...

 

Hope they don't have broadwell, that'd mean a Q3 2015 release and I'm waiting for it now.

 

960m is disappointing. I would have no problem going in on one of these (despite the price point) if they offered a better card. Even a 970m would be enticing.

 

?

It is a 970m.

 

This- 1000x over. I own a 980m currently in a P170SM-A and I would like it to be more portable. I could see myself going down to a 970m- for my portable machine that'd be fine with me- but a 960m would be just too weak and cost way too much for what I'm getting. I want at least a 960m desktop card. Hell, I'd even take it with a 965m...

 

Nothing's been confirmed for the Blade Pro (assuming it gets refreshed). The Blade has a 970m though. Not sure where people are getting the 960m from.

 

It's because the previous Blade Pro had an 860m while the Blade 14 had a 870m. They could pull off the same thing again this year, the only true novelty here is the 16 GB of RAM (970M was inevitable) and there are still no 1080p+ 17" screens so they might include a 960M again.

 

I understand that, I just find it odd that people seem to be complaining before it's even announced lol.

 

Lol you're right. Maybe it's because Razer tends to overlook things. Like I really can't understand why they didn't replace the HDMI with a miniDP.

 

True enough. While I personally have no preference as I mainly use the built-in display, it would've made more sense to add miniDP. I'd love for Min-Liang Tan to actually go over all the design choices for the Blade so we can understand Razer's rationale for such things.

 

Well, last years model as a basis, and because Razer has put a mid-range GPU in all 17" Blades since it's inception. Plus I believe there was benchmarks found from test samples that pointed to 17" being mid range again.
This is a message board, where we discuss products. I am unhappy with the current offerings. If I do not voice my opinion, how would Razer know we desire change? How is it good business or a smart offering to offer lower powered hardware for more money?

 

I get it, honestly I do. Speculating is one thing, but I just found it funny how everyone is already disappointed before the laptop refresh has even been announced. We will not know the specs until Razer officially announces it. Given that Razer is actually offering a 1080p non-touch version of the Blade (due to feedback?) this time around I would say anything is possible when it comes to the Blade Pro.

 

Only Razer will know, Only Razer will tell

 

Well given that they've only just updated the Razer Blade for the 970m GPU, I'd be surprised if they did another update before then anyway

 

At this point, I'm betting gimped 980M with 4GB vram.

 

Yeah the next update will probably come with Broadwell but only next year. For the Pro, I assume they're waiting for high res 17 inch panels.

 

Gimped? How so?

 

4GB vram instead of 8gb.

 

I wouldn't go as far as calling it gimped considering that even the desktop 980 has 4 GB.

 

OK, this is a little direct perhaps, but can you show how the additional 4GB of VRAM would be helpful?

My SLI 780Ti desktop setup is adept at 2560x1440 on maxed out settings and doesn't get into framerate fits until I go overboard with AA or downsampling.

 

Newer games are requiring >4GB vram to max out options. ACU needs 5.1GB vram. Max out ACU on your 4GB card and it will have a lot of popins and general issues. Drop AA down and it runs great. On my notebook it runs better (at a lower framerate) than my desktop

 

Which is why I returned my 980. It just isn't cutting it. Waiting for the 980 Ti. supposed to have 6GB/8GB vram variants.

 

You're a GPU manufacturer's (really, notebook vendor's) dream come true.

 

Honestly not sure if that's a troll or not but it is the truth. The fact we've been stuck at 4GB is pretty sad. The master race is having to CATCH UP to consoles and the consoles can't even display games at full 1080p60, most are 900p30 =/ pretty sad state of things.

 

Current consoles have 8GB of dedicated vRAM?

I'm going to stop here. It's pretty clear you're far afield with comments like this. Hit up Google for a refresher on this topic, which has been hashed and re-hashed over and over since the release of current-gen consoles.

 

I never said consoles had dedicated 8GB vRAM. PS4/X1 are using unified RAM. Games are completely unoptimized as it is and the more ports we get the more they will require more vRAM. This discussion is moot. You are beginning to sound like Bill Gates and Co. saying we'll never need more then 640k of RAM

At bare minimum from now on it should be 6GB vRAM. This may be my opinion but within the next few months with some more AAA titles we'll see how it stands up