Gaming laptops tend to push garish, over-the-top designs these days; the second-generation Razer Blade throws these clichéd conventions out the window. The result is a 16.8x10.9x.88-inch minimalist laptop that resembles a large matte-black MacBook Pro. This doesn't mean the Blade looks plain, however. Its alluring green LEDs coupled with its slick LCD trackpad give this Blade a killer edge.
Featuring a 17.3-inch screen, the laptop is massive. But, while the Blade certainly sports a large footprint, it’s sexy-slim at .88 inches. While the laptop doesn't feel light, with a carry weight of seven pounds, seven ounces, it’s much lighter than most competitors in its class. Heck, our 15-inch MSI GT60 zero-point was noticeably heavier at 10 pounds.
The laptop's unique LCD trackpad can be customized for a variety of different games and programs.
The brain behind the beauty is Intel's 2.2GHz Core i7-3632QM quad-core CPU, which clocks up to 3.2GHz with Turbo Boost. Discrete graphics come courtesy of Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660M GPU with 2GB of GDDR5 video memory. Unlike the MSI’s GTX 670M, which uses the older 40nm Fermi architecture, the Blade's GeForce is based on the 28nm Kepler chipset. Regardless of the new architecture, the Blade's 660 couldn't match MSI's 670 GPU, losing to the latter by double-digit percentages in both our STALKER: Call of Pripyat and 3DMark 11 benchmarks.
In our more CPU-intensive tests, the laptops traded blows. The GT60's 100MHz-faster 2.3GHz Core i7-3610QM processor performed slightly better in our Stitch.Efx 2.0 and ProShow Producer 5 tests, but lost to the Blade's newer Intel CPU in our x264 benchmark by a slightly wider margin. In terms of battery life, the Blade didn't fare quite as well. Looping an HD movie off the hard drive, the Blade's 60-watt-hour battery lasted two hours and 44 minutes, compared to our zero-point’s three-plus hours. Of course, machines of this size generally don’t travel far from a power outlet.
Check out our hands-on impressions of the Razer Blade gaming laptop
We’re more disappointed by the Blade's storage offering, which primarily consists of a 500GB HDD (that’s half what the far-cheaper GT60 offers). But what the Blade lacks in capacity, it makes up for in speed. Along with its 7,200rpm hard drive, the Blade features a 64GB SATA 6Gb/s SSD. As a result, the laptop booted to Windows in 24 seconds. Our zero-point took more than twice as long.
As for the screen, the laptop's 1920x1080 LED-backlit LCD looks great if you're viewing it head-on, but it does have the characteristic TN shimmer when you view it off axis. What really sets the laptop apart is its multitouch LCD trackpad. The mini panel looks slick and plays games surprisingly well. It's certainly not as quick and precise as a real mouse, but it's about on par with an Xbox 360 controller for shooters. The 4-inch LCD screen also acts as a secondary 800x480-resolution monitor that’s aided by 10 programmable LCD buttons, allowing you to, say, watch YouTube videos, check your Facebook page, or surf the web between loading screens. The worst thing about the trackpad is its placement on the right side of the keyboard; because we’ve been conditioned to using a trackpad below the keyboard, having it on the right felt extremely counterintuitive and definitely took getting used to—but the placement does work better for gaming once you get acclimated to it.
While the keyboard isn't quite as unique, its green LED-backlit keys look gorgeous and we loved the quiet and responsive feel of the buttons. One thing we didn't like about the keyboard—and the whole chassis, for that matter—is its affinity for fingerprints. On the audio front, the speakers are adequate—they're loud and don't distort at full volume—but these run-of-the-mill laptop speakers aren't going to impress audiophiles.
Although the Blade is by no means weak, for a $2,500 gaming notebook, a better GPU would have been nice. Our zero-point GT60, which is cheaper by $1,000, outperformed Razer's laptop in several benchmarks but is admittedly far bulkier and heavier. What you're actually paying for here is the design and portability. Luckily, the Blade delivers on both fronts.
Price $2,500, http://www.razerzone.com/
Note: This review was taken from the Holiday issue of the magazine.
Beautiful design; useful, customizable gaming trackpad; large screen.
Expensive; price tag suggests beefier components.
| CPU | 2.2GHz Intel Core i7-3632QM |
| RAM | 8GB DDR3/1600 |
| Chipset | Intel HM77 |
| GPU | Nvidia GeForce GTX 660M with Optimus Technology |
| Display | 17.3-inch, 1920x1080 LCD |
| Storage | 64GB SATA III SSD, 500GB hard drive (7,200rpm) |
| Connectivity | Ethernet, HDMI, 3x USB 3.0, headphone, mic, 2MP webcam, Bluetooth 4.0, 802.11a/g/n |
| Lap / Carry | 6 lbs, 11 oz / 7 lbs, 7.2 oz |
| Zero-point | ||
| Stitch.Efx 2.0 (sec) | 1,092 | 1125 (-2.9%) |
| ProShow Producer 5 (sec) | 1,786 | 1,856 (-3.7%) |
| x264 HD 5.0 (fps) | 12.0 | 11.3 |
| STALKER: CoP (fps) | 32.8 | 27.6 (-15.9%) |
| 3DMark 11 Perf | 2,979 | 2,405 (-19.3%) |
| Battery Life (min) | 187 | 164 (-12.3%) |
Our zero-point notebook is an MSI GT60 with a 2.3GHz Intel Core i7-3610QM, 12GB DDR3/1600, two 500GB Seagate 7,200rpm hard drives, a GeForce GTX 670M, and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. STALKER CoP tested at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, Tessellation, and contact hardening.
Dane Henson RF
February 13, 2013 at 9:24am
This laptop is just plain awful, made only for someone who thinks they are a "gamer." Honestly 2,500 for a 17" with a 670m, really razor? 15" laptops half the price are pushing out equal specs with 670MXs equipped. I recently picked up an Asus g46, sporting a 2.5Ghz i5, 8gb ram, GTX 660m, and a 750Gb HD,for only $999. Gamers looking for more power can pick up a 17" SLI gaming laptop with infinitely better specs for under 2000. The only outstanding spec on this "rig" is its processor, which we all know, doesn't make a single bit of difference when it comes to frames per second. This is an absolute disgrace as a gaming laptop and a pathetic show even for Razer. The specs and features just aren't here, easily the worst bang for your buck laptop of all time. Does not even deserve a 8/10 as Maximum PC generously gave it, more like a 6/10 from an actual PC gamers standpoint. If they dropped the price to 1,999 and gave it a 680m or even the unreleased 690m, could probably be a palatable rig.
Pyrophorics05
February 06, 2013 at 11:31am
Expensive; price tag suggests beefier components.
Incorrect, it suggest's they feel they can charge whatever they want for their nitch device. The profit margin on this build is similar to an Apple product, however they don't have the same market or presence to charge these prices.
Razer products have always been overpriced and most of the time they simply do not work. Maybe I've been unlucky with every single Razer product purchased or maybe they have a habit of selling products in open beta.
I'm not sure what they hope to accomplish with this line, but I am sure it won't have impressive sales numbers.
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
February 07, 2013 at 5:09am
I call bull on this. You can spin market dynamics to justify almost anything.
These aren't new companies releasing their first product into an unknown market.
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
February 06, 2013 at 4:33am
"Sex appeal?" You're going to fuck it?
Seriously, wake up, people. Don't pay more for less. Get a whiff of what these manufacturers are shoveling. These ultra-thin laptops require fewer raw materials and have cheaper hardware options than traditional notebooks, yet manufacturers are inflating prices, because these things are supposedly trendy.
Don't pay more for less. Don't be stupid.
savage4naves
February 07, 2013 at 1:37am
I'm going to plug my micro chip into your drive bay. No need for a firewall baby; you're on the white list.
Ninjawithagun
February 06, 2013 at 7:38am
Couldn't agree more. Yet, there are going to be those stupid people that will buy this crap and support Razer's inflated pricing of their products. Another craptastic product from Razer is the 7.1 Tiamat. I bought one and had it for 3 months and the microphone broke. RMA'd it back to them and they sent it back to me with the mic still broken! I almost threw it in the trash I was so mad. I took it apart to see if there was anyway I could try to fix it, but there was nothing that could be done. Though, I learned a great deal during the disassembly process. The Tiamat headphones are of the absolutely cheapest build quality I've seen in any headset. Screws that were visible on the outside were in fact fake and almost all of the headset was held together by glue! Never again, will I support a supposedly American company (yeah right) that sells illegal Chinese child labor made items. Yes, the Tiamat packaging states "Made in China". From this experience, I have decided that I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER POS RAZER PRODUCT EVER AGAIN.
savage4naves
February 05, 2013 at 7:01pm
The hardware specs and sex appeal are light years ahead of my current laptop. I would love one of these!
TheMissingPiece
February 05, 2013 at 6:16pm
If I didn't care about money, I'd love this. The build quality looks amazing. On a slightly related note, why can't we have any matte-black Ultrabooks? It boggles me. I have to admit that I was attracted to the matte black Macbook Pros and now the Razer Blade.
Danthrax66
February 06, 2013 at 7:00am
I was going to point out that Sony made one but it technically wasn't an ultrabook, although it was only .66 inches thick it used an i7 quad and had better battery life than the Samsung 9. It was called the Vaio Z-series 13.1 inch but they stopped making it apparently. It was pretty much the best ultrabook around.
Engelsstaub
February 06, 2013 at 7:35pm
I would buy the X1 Carbon; it looks awesome. I'd have to play around with one first.
vrmlbasic
February 05, 2013 at 4:48pm
Why is it that Apple still only puts a 650M with its retina displays when even Razr has decided to pair a 660M with a comparatively pedestrian 1920*1080 display?
Peanut Fox
February 05, 2013 at 6:14pm
My guess is Apple isn't interested in supporting gaming at that resolution.
Mainian
February 06, 2013 at 8:47am
Thought I'd make an account to comment.
Apple markets to a different group obviously. They want their Retina to be a very portable powerhouse for work. They have Optimus technology and want to be able to boast a battery life for 7 hours (basically a full days work). The 650m is basically for graphic design and primarily used when plugged in. Also, they'd probably have some heat problems with a 660m? And let's be honest... the profit margins aren't big enough if they went with it.
vrmlbasic
February 06, 2013 at 1:29pm
I'm not convinced that Apple wouldn't make enough money off each MPB if they were to throw in a better GPU. Their product is already fantastically expensive, the devoted seem to pay any price Apple asks, and Apple is already putting in an envy-inducing high resolution screen that the rest of the industry is screaming is "too expensive" to even contemplate.
Apple gives us an astounding high-res main LCD screen and charges a premium. Razr gives us a funky low-res LCD touchpad and charges a similar premium. I can't see any justification for the touchpad premium as I know that I would never use it: gaming is, imo, the realm of mouse (and occasionally controller) control.
TheZomb
February 07, 2013 at 9:43am
I bet apple is less concerned with the added cost of a better processor and more concerned with the battery life. I wouldn't be surprised if you went back and looked at most apple products you wouldn't find that the processor choice was looking for the highest combination of battery life and power vs just power.
vrmlbasic
February 06, 2013 at 1:23pm
Another baffling decision by Apple then, to outfit their desktop with a larger, but lower-resolution, display of a different aspect ratio (MBP/retina is 16:10).
Peanut Fox
February 06, 2013 at 12:56am
Hell if I know. I'm not a MBP expert. He said 650m, so that's what's in them as far as I'm concerned.
Do all versions of the MBP come with a 680m?
davelray
February 06, 2013 at 7:31am
None come with a 680. 13" MBP uses Intel 4000 graphics while the 15" uses the 650M. The 680MX is only used in the 27" iMac and is an optional upgrade costing $150 extra.
Print
