Razer Blade Review

23

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Dane Henson RF

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.

avatar

Pyrophorics05

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.

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

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.

avatar

Pyrophorics05

Sorry, no idea what you're trying to convey here...

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

"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.

avatar

savage4naves

I'm going to plug my micro chip into your drive bay. No need for a firewall baby; you're on the white list.

avatar

Engelsstaub

It's a solid 8/10. You wouldn't hit that?

avatar

Ninjawithagun

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.

avatar

savage4naves

The hardware specs and sex appeal are light years ahead of my current laptop. I would love one of these!

avatar

TheMissingPiece

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.

avatar

nedwards

Lenovo's X1 Carbon is matte black.

avatar

jimmthang

A wild Nathan appears

avatar

Danthrax66

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.

avatar

Engelsstaub

I would buy the X1 Carbon; it looks awesome. I'd have to play around with one first.

avatar

vrmlbasic

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?

avatar

Peanut Fox

My guess is Apple isn't interested in supporting gaming at that resolution.

avatar

Mainian

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.

avatar

vrmlbasic

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.

avatar

TheZomb

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.

avatar

jzsn

But the new imac with 2560x1440 resolution has gtx680mx in it.

avatar

vrmlbasic

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).

avatar

Peanut Fox

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?

avatar

davelray

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.