Battery Life

It's fairly well established at this point that gaming laptops and other desktop replacement machines act more like highly portable all-in-one computers than laptops. That is to say, the battery life that you can expect when really making use of the laptop's hardware is incredibly short. With that being said, there's no reason why a gaming laptop shouldn't be able to offer decent battery life for lighter tasks like surfing the web and watching videos. Due to the static power consumption of the system it's unlikely to achieve the same sort of battery life that an ultrabook would, but users should at least be able to do web surfing or get through a movie before having to recharge.

To characterize the Blade Pro's battery life in these types of situations I've run it through our two web battery tests and our video playback test. As always, the display was set to 200 nits in order to keep results comparable between devices. To ensure consistency with the experience that other Blade Pro users will have, the testing was done using Razer's included color profile rather than the more accurately calibrated profile that I generated for the review, as the different appearance for each profile can have an impact on the power consumption if power-saving measures like content-adaptive backlight controls are utilized.

2013 Light Battery

Battery Life 2013 - Light

In the old 2013 battery test the Blade Pro comes in at 225 minutes, which is 3.75 hours, or 3 hours and 45 minutes if you prefer that form. This is right in the middle of the chart, but if you compare it to other laptops that use GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 you'll find that it actually leads by a significant margin. A slightly unfair but relevant comparison is to the Clevo P870DM2, which is a desktop replacement machine that is considerably larger and heavier, but also has a desktop i7 CPU and a smaller battery. The Clevo lasts just under three hours, so the Blade Pro has an advantage if you're looking for an incredibly powerful laptop that can be used for some time off of a charger.

2016 Web Battery

Battery Life 2016 - Web

In the newer 2016 web browsing test the Razer Blade Pro lasts almost exactly as long as in the older 2013 test. This would suggest that the additional workload of the newer web test is not really relevant next to the static power consumption of the laptop, and if that is the case, users should be able to expect similar battery life for all lightweight tasks.

Normalized Battery Life

Battery Life 2013 - Light Normalized

Battery Life 2016 - Web - Normalized

While not directly relevant to consumers, it's interesting to look at a device's battery life as a function of its battery capacity in order to get an idea of how efficient it is. As you can see, while the Blade Pro does last longer than the Clevo P870DM2 in our web browsing tests, it did so with the help of a larger battery, and the normalized battery life relative to the capacity of the battery is very similar. It's worth noting that the Blade Pro achieves this with a UHD display, while the Clevo was tested with a 1080p panel, and so I would argue that Razer's result is the more impressive of the two. Of course, the Clevo is disadvantaged by using a desktop CPU, but being able to scale down power for light workloads is necessary for a laptop.

Tesseract Score

Battery Life Movie Playback

Tesseract

In our video playback battery test the Blade Pro comes in at 3.88 hours, which is ever so slightly longer than the web tests which clocked in around 3.75 hours. This is a pretty solid confirmation that the Blade Pro's battery life will be consistent for all these light workloads, as the additional power consumption of a lightweight task is small relative to the fixed platform power of the laptop. As for the Tesseract score, the Blade Pro can't last long enough to get through two cycles of a 143 minute movie, which is a fairly standard length for a movie nowadays, so I'd recommend keeping the power supply handy. 

Based on these tests, one can conclude that the Razer Blade Pro provides between three and four hours of battery life for general lightweight tasks like web browsing and watching videos. Razer isn't able to take advantage of Optimus because of the inclusion of G-SYNC, so you're always running off the GTX 1080. With heavier workloads that make greater use of the GPU I've found that the battery depletes rapidly, so I don't recommend trying to play a game without the laptop being plugged in. However, having four hours of battery life is honestly not that bad for such a high performance machine, and it compares favorably to desktop replacement machines from other vendors because, in addition to lasting longer, the total mass of the Blade Pro and its power  supply is still much less than a DTR from Clevo or MSI on its own.

Charge Time

The 2016 Razer Blade Pro comes with a 250W power supply, and given that you can only expect a few hours of usage at best, it's one that you'll want to keep with you. Thankfully, it's not incredibly thick like the power supply for Clevo laptops, so it can fit into the inner pockets of many bags without much difficulty. It is still relatively heavy compared to something like Apple's 85W MacBook charger though, so it's a good idea to take it into consideration when deciding whether you want to carry the Blade Pro somewhere.

Battery Charge Time

The Blade Pro has a 99Wh battery which is the biggest battery Razer could ship while complying with airline regulations. With such a large battery and a 250W PSU, the charge time is naturally going to be longer than something like the Clevo P870DM2 which only has an 82Wh battery and a 330W PSU. Having actually used Clevo's power supply, I will say that Razer's solution is basically half the size and mass, and I think that having a slightly longer charge time is worth it to avoid further increases to the mass of the laptop + PSU combo. You can see the size of the Blade Pro charger in the image above, with a credit-card sized card for reference. Additionally, you'll almost always have the Blade Pro plugged in anyway, so a slightly longer-than-average charge time really doesn't present a real-world problem.

Display: Adobe RGB Accuracy Software, Audio, Thermals
Comments Locked

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • Eden-K121D - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    Who'll buy this?
  • Ninhalem - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    From the article: "The 2016 Razer Blade Pro is a great gaming laptop. I certainly wish I could afford one for myself. My life right now is characterized by frequent moving due to work and university, and something like the Blade Pro would allow me to bring an incredibly powerful machine with me wherever I go. While the Blade Pro fulfills its role as a high performance gaming machine, it did let me down as a mobile workstation."

    The last sentence feels like an unintended scenario for this laptop. Mobile workstation to me says you need to do activities like CAD and/or purely business work, and requires a CAD card instead of the mainstream variant. This laptop's intended audience clearly isn't the business world.
  • fanofanand - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    No $4,000 laptop should be usable ONLY for gaming, any other laptop in this price range is a jack of all trades sans military laptops.
  • Brandon Chester - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    Yeah that was my point. I'm actually willing to shell out $3700 on a laptop if it can replace every other computer in my life. If it can only replace a gaming machine then it's going to be limited to the niche of users who can afford paying that much just to bring their games around with them.
  • akdj - Tuesday, March 14, 2017 - link

    I'm with ya Brandon - always have been, as my laptop pays my mortgage, son's tuition, and wife's car payment;)
    As an OS X/macOS user over the last decade, their last half year 'computationally, has excited me as much as a three hundred mile road trip to grandpa and grandma's in the station wagon as a kid. And I can't be totally sure, but I think I might not be their 'audience' any longer...kinda feel unwanted after a pair of 17" 2008/2011 & two 15s in the Intel era, 2012 and 2015. Plenty between my '83 IIe and current 2015 15"
    ... I was very excited for your review
    Needless to say, I'm shocked at the results (even in comparison w/their small 14" model you reviewed, as the objective 'scores and analysis' are in the charts with both machines represented!)

    Oh well, always a compromise
  • DanNeely - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    From a few sentences later in the article it's clear that he's talking about a image/video editing workstation not a CAD box; for the former only the screen is really holding it back.
  • QuinRiva - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    Mid level technical professionals... The business is buying it, so the price is pretty insignificant compared to salary and overheads. Sure, most of my workload is offloaded to a DB or compute node somewhere, but loads of prototyping and presentation workload is done on the laptop/client side.

    Quadcore is essential just to run things like Excel/Tableau, and a decent graphics card is useful for Illustrator, or running neural nets; or spending a bit of time relaxing playing a game on an international business trip.

    And if they want "pro" buy-in, it has to look like a professional tool - I can't turn up to a client meeting with a flashing garish "gaming laptop". The XPS 15 is a pretty good compromise on this front, it's just a pity it was limited to GTX 960M.
  • milkod2001 - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    Rich kidz who play games and content creators who think that their web sized images will somehow load on this machine faster...

    Price is ridiculous, screen, GPU & CPU should not cost more than 1000, the rest 500 leaving 500 margin for Razor if sold at realistic $2000 but no this costs $3699. What a joke.
  • fanofanand - Monday, March 13, 2017 - link

    That GPU alone was $700 in the desktop form up until a couple weeks ago, and the "recommended" price on that CPU is $378. I know Razer isn't paying retail on these things but if you believe $1,000 for the screen, CPU and CPU "should not cost more than 1000" then I think you are unaware of component prices. Yes this thing has huge margins, yes it's ridiculously overpriced, but I think your numbers are pure fantasy.
  • digiguy - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link

    One negative aspect seems to be unanimously mentioned by all reviewers: the keyboard is crap. Which, for a laptop, is a big negative.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now