The New Razer Blade: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Vivek Gowri on October 3, 2012 5:40 PM ESTRazer Blade (late 2012) - Gaming
I gave a pretty thorough breakdown of NVIDIA’s midrange mobile GPU lineup on the first page, so I’ll just give you a quick summary here. The new Blade comes with the entry level GTX-class GPU, the GTX 660M. It comes with a GK107 core with 384 CUDA processors, 2GB of GDDR5 video memory, a core clock speed of 835MHz, and memory clocks of 2500MHz. Additionally, the GTX 660M can boost clock speed up to 950MHz when gaming. This is essentially the same GPU as the GT 640M and GT 650M except with higher clock speeds, so there is some question as to whether or not it deserves the GTX label.
With that said, the 600M lineup has shaken out as such and this is really the only viable chip for Razer to have chosen, at least until the quiet release of the GK106 based GTX 670MX/675MX earlier this week. Since those parts likely weren't available for testing and validation in time, the only other option would have been the awe-inspiring GTX 680M. GK104 has a TDP of 100W, which is roughly the same as the power envelope of the entire Blade system. So, not really an option.
As for GK106, the GTX 670MX and 675MX chips just showed up as a pair of Kepler-based replacements for the Fermi-based GTX 670M and 675M, but we don’t have too much in the way of firm information on the new chips yet in terms of performance or power characteristics so speculation isn’t really worth it. Most likely those chips will be roughly half way between the GTX 660M and GTX 680M in terms of TDP, which may or may not fit into the Blade's thermal envelope. Since we don't have them, however, let’s focus on what we have in front of us.
The GTX 660M performs roughly 15-20% faster than the GDDR5 variant of the GT 650M, which is pretty much in line with the clock speed difference. It’s pretty solid, actually, topping the 30fps mark in our enthusiast gaming suite (albeit barely in several titles) in all of the games except Battlefield 3, and being comfortably playable in our entire mainstream suite, never dipping below 40fps. It’s a bit more powerful than the GTX 560M, but obviously gets blown out of the water by the GTX 680M.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
59 Comments
View All Comments
Rezurecta - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
One question. Do you think MBP's are overpriced?ahamling27 - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
They sure are, but if you want OSX on a laptop, you don't have much choice. You can get a better W7 gaming laptop for much cheaper.solinear - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
This kind of comment reminds me of the late 90s linux users, who bragged about how they spent $150 less on their systems and could do "everything I could" (except use software)... then a few years later went out and spent $2000 on a Mac with OSX and talked about how awesome it was and suddenly the price argument they previously had was not only not there, but they refused to discuss price when I brought that up.Price is important, but it's just part of a package. I think that the Razer package is probably worth ~$2000, though I might go with an HP instead (Alienware feels legacy to me) when I buy a new laptop. However, this is definitely on my short list for laptops.
The feature set is really nice and the fact that I wouldn't have to go "Which one of these ports is USB3 again?" or move a device out of a port to use the one that I need for something is more than a small amount of convenience.
Basically this laptop has everything that I'd want for the next 2-3 years in a laptop except for the SSD and RAM. Like others said, I'd rather have 16+GB RAM and an OS/apps drive that is a 256GB SSD and a platter-based disk for data or apps that I am not as concerned about performance on. That's what we did with my wife's HP laptop and we couldn't be happier with it.
Clockwurk - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
The problem with them making a "premium" product is that they aren't using "premium" parts. They are using middle of the road hardware and calling it "premium". That's what I have a problem with.Seems to work well enough for Apple, no?
ahamling27 - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
Yes, but with Apple your buying OSX not a W7 gaming machine. You're comparing apples to oranges, no pun intended, and it does work well for them.Except the rMBP has a better screen, faster processor, industry leading trackpad, but the gpu is a 650(for what it's worth, it's overclocked an extra 165 mhz). Plus, it's about $300 cheaper, and you have the option of a larger SSD.
Zap - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Buying ANY notebook computer is picking form over function. If you want highest performance for a lower price while still keeping some sense of portability, then build a mini ITX gaming rig. Remember that Silverstone SG05 that was reviewed in the past couple months? You can build one with an overclocked Core i7 and GTX 680, with a lot more storage space too.What's the point? Any computer choice is always a tradeoff. Pick your poison.
santeana - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
Why comment? It is a valid point. I happen to agree with him. For just over half that price you can get the same chip with a premium display and your choice of AMD 7970m or NV GTX685m and it's only slightly thicker than this one. It's certainly a nice machine and I like the sleekness of it, but honestly it looks similar to the Sager/Clevo I just described and it's hundreds of dollars more.N4g4rok - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
Personally, i wish more laptops did that with the trackpad. The placement makes more sense when you're use to mouse and keyboard. That, and i won't hit it while i'm typing.inighthawki - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
I'd prefer a numpad there myself.HisDivineOrder - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
Ditto.