Razer Blade (late 2012) - Battery Life

As before, battery life is quite solid, due in no small part to the wonders of NVIDIA’s Optimus graphics switching technology. It's amazing that gaming systems like the Blade, M17x, and M18x are all capable of four or more hours of real world usage, when just a couple of years ago this class of system had the battery serve as a glorified UPS. It's good that AMD has caught on with Enduro, and the Clevo that Jarred tested with the latest Enduro drivers was almost as good as what we're used to seeing from NVIDIA based notebooks. [Ed: Not really, actually, but that's more the fault of Clevo and not a problem with Enduro.]

Battery Life—Idle

Battery Life—Internet

Battery Life—H.264 Playback

With the Blade, we saw just over four and a half hours in our internet benchmark test, which is usually a good indicator of real-world system usage, and exactly five and a half in our ideal-case scenario. We noted a few percent improvement across the board versus the original Blade, which is pretty good when you consider how much computing power was added in the refresh. Razer is using the same 60Wh Li-poly battery pack as before, so the efficiency numbers look pretty good—one of the best in the class and just ahead of the Samsung Series 7 when we normalize for capacity. The only one that beat it on our charts is the Clevo W110ER, an 11.6" notebook with an i7 quad and a DDR3 GT 650M. The signficantly smaller (and dimmer) display means that it has lower power consumption. Given the sheer size of the Blade, it makes for a surprisingly good portable companion.

Battery Life Normalized—Internet

Another power-related detail I completely glossed over last time around was the 120W power adapter—it’s significantly smaller than any other 120W adapter out there. It’s slimmer than most of the 90W AC adapters I’ve seen, too. It’s a 19V brick that can draw up to 6.32A, and it weighs roughly three-quarters of a pound. It’s pretty impressive when you compare it to the shoebox-sized adapters that come with some of the Clevo systems these days. I’ve heard estimates from within Razer that it costs about six times as much to manufacture as a typical 120W adapter, and is one of the many custom-designed and custom-made parts in the Blade.

Razer Blade (late 2012) - Display Razer Blade (late 2012) - Final Thoughts
Comments Locked

59 Comments

View All Comments

  • ahamling27 - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link

    It was my black Macbook from 2007, only larger and with a weird placement of the trackpad. It's sleek, I'll give them that, but I'd much rather pay for something that's bulky but has more horsepower under the hood. That's all we're really talking about here though, and I'm not willing to choose form over function, not at that price point.
  • danjw - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link

    Ok, so why bother with a comment? To me it is a good trade off of form factor and functionality. Like Vivek, I would prefer an option for a pure SSD; But it isn't a bad compromise they have gone with.

    I like the Switchblade to play with as well. Some may find it cumbersome to program, but as a computer programmer, I doubt I will find it so.

    Anyway mobile devices are about trade offs, some will fit some peoples styles and others will fit others. it is part of the game.
  • ahamling27 - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link

    The point was to start a discussion. I honestly don't see why anyone would pay so much for something when a better spec'd machine can be had for quite a bit less. I understand that it's not easy to cram all that in a rather slim and attractive design, but why should that cost such a premium?

    Back in 2009 I purchased a Gateway P-7811 FX for 40% of the asking price and it's got a 1920x1200 screen, a 9800m gts, and a dual core 2.26 ghz processor, and that was over 3 years ago! Sure it wasn't .88" thin, and all black, but it wasn't ugly either.

    All I'm saying is that for this to be anything but an expensive gimmick, they need to figure out a way to lower their costs.
  • gelb - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link

    Well in my opinion, its like this; A Toyota Tacoma cost around 30,000 dollars for a 3.4 liter v6 engine and and a great sleek good looking finish along with a nice attention to detail. Now on the other hand is the around 20,000 dollar Nissan Frontier with a 4.0 liter v6 engine. Now, the Tacoma will give you a lot more features along with nicer finish and machine work to the actual frame and parts, but it lacks the "uumph" the Frontier has with it's 4.0 liter v6 engine. Now another thing that should be taken into account their fuel efficiency. The Tacoma gets a much better fuel efficiency than the Frontier does. So, the Blade in my opinion is the Tacoma and the other brands such as Asus etc. are the Frontier makers. In the Blade, you don't get the same kind of power but you trade it for a better finish/build and sleekness.
  • elhoboloco - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link

    > Toyota
    > Great design

    Pick one.
  • VivekGowri - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link

    Hahaha. You can make the same argument with the 911 and the Corvette, if that helps. Power and value versus refinement, style, fit and finish, design/build quality, etc.
  • Bob Todd - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link

    Saying the Gateway P-7811 FX wasn't ugly doesn't help your case. It was hideous. I had one for 2 days before returning it for a screen defect. Some people are willing to pay (significantly) more for better materials and build quality. You can get the same CPU/GPU/resolution in a $999 Lenovo Y580. That doesn't make it a better laptop for everyone. One feels premium, the other feels like a tin can. It might not be worth it to you, but not everyone has the same use case and priorities as you. You don't try to build a premium brand (with premium margins) by starting off competing in the hotly contested space between $800-$15000. For me, Vivek was spot on about wanting to ditch caching storage and add IPS at this price point. So while I wouldn't spend $2500 on this, I can absolutely understand others doing so. I'd love to have one, and that's kind of the point from a product perspective.
  • Bob Todd - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link

    If only I could edit...that was supposed to be "basically the same CPU/GPU/resolution", as the Blade obviously has the 3632QM vs. the 3610QM in the Y580.
  • ahamling27 - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link

    The Gateway was far from ugly, but what it looks like is purely subjective and had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. You actually helped me prove my point with the Lenovo. That's a great laptop there, so why does the Switchblade cost $1500 more?

    $1500 more for something that "feels premium"? It's a plastic body...

    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.
  • ahamling27 - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link

    Whoops, now I'm red in the face, I guess it is made of aluminium , not plastic. +1 Razer, but I'm still standing my point, it woefully overpriced.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now