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
Cutebone - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
"I'd also like to see an optional SSD-only configuratoin"Thanks for the write-up...wish I had $2,500 to spare...
robmuld - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
I wish they offered a 16:10 option. Also, a proper navigation keys (PgUp/Dn and Home/End) section on the keyboard. This has sadly disappeared from most mobile keyboards nowadays, whereas it was more common years ago.andykins - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
Great notebook and great review. I'm really glad you decided to dump PCMark7. I totally ignored the benchmarks from that suite in every review; I actually have no idea why Anandtech includes them, they're totally useless really.I have to say, I think if I had that amount of money to spend I would rather get a rMBP. If money was no object, however, I'd get both! ^^ But it begs the question why you didn't include rMBP (running Win7) in the results when you have a machine at hand? :)
Camacho - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
Why is the Macbook "A different story entirely"? It is pretty much the same damn hardware as the Blade with a slightly slower GPU (GT 650m) and slightly faster CPU at base and all core clock. Blade beats it on single thread by 100MHz. @ 3.4GHz AND is cheaper. Plus it has your IPS display. Just wondering as you can just install Windows on the Mac. IPS laptop display is as fast as anything I have seen in a portable so not sure what the Razer guy was on about. ???.Camacho - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
I was wrong the Macbook Pro has a faster CPU on all counts.will54 - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
Actually the Macbook has a faster GPU at there stock clocks since for some reason the MBP has a 165 mhz higher clock speed than other GDDR5 650M's. Not sure why they didn't just go with the GTX 660M.VivekGowri - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
Because it's an OS X-based 15" machine that plays in a completely different size and weight class? You wouldn't compare a Porsche 911 and a Mercedes S-class just because they cost roughly the same and have a similar amount of power, right - same principle applies here.andykins - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
I disagree, Vivek. Maybe I am isolated case but I would very much like to see it compared to the rMBP. After all, the Razer is compared to laptops that weigh 3lb (50%+) heavier.VivekGowri - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
I dunno, there's just a huge difference between a 4.5lb 15" system and a 6.5lb 17" system in terms of form factor. Add in OS X, and I felt like they were different enough that they wouldn't be cross shopped much. M17x, on the other hand, is probably the biggest competitor for the Blade. The rMBP to me is an amazing system but I can't see a valid comparison. I guess maybe if you wanted the closest thing to the Blade in a 15" form factor, get an rMBP?Flunk - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
It's a shame they don't make a 15" version of this. 17", no matter how thin is just too big to be reasonably portable. Heck, I would buy a 15" version of this at the same price. There really isn't much in that market space right now.