The New Razer Blade: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Vivek Gowri on October 3, 2012 5:40 PM ESTRazer Blade (late 2012) - Performance
To gauge how the new Blade stacks up versus its predecessor and other gaming-class notebooks, we picked a decent selection of systems with the entire range of modern GPUs, from the GT 650M GDDR5 in Samsung's Series 7 to the pair of Alienware systems with GTX 680M and 680M SLI graphics configurations. There's a decent range of storage technologies on display here as well, with a number of different SSDs and hybrid storage solutions, along with one conventional 7200RPM hard drive.
Notebook Configuration Overview | ||||
CPU | Graphics | Storage | Battery | |
Alienware M17x R4 | i7-3720QM | GTX 680M | Hybrid (Intel SRT) | 90Wh |
Alienware M18x R2 | i7-3820QM | GTX 680M SLI | 2x SSD 830 (RAID) | 97Wh |
ASUS G74SX-A2 | i7-2630QM | GTX 560M | Intel 320 SSD | 90Wh |
AVADirect Clevo P170EM | i7-3720QM | HD 7970M | Crucial M4 SSD | 77Wh |
Clevo W110ER | i7-3720QM | GT 650M | Hybrid (Momentus XT) | 62Wh |
iBUYPOWER MSI GT70 | i7-3610QM | GTX 675M | 7200RPM HDD | 60Wh |
Razer Blade | i7-2640M | GT 555M | Lite-On M2S SSD | 60Wh |
Samsung Series 7 | i7-3615QM | GT 650M | Hybrid (ExpressCache) | 77Wh |
Razer Blade (late 2012) | i7-3632QM | GTX 660M | Hybrid (DataPlex) | 60Wh |
The Blade is the first 35W quad that I’ve dealt with, and it’s the only 35W quad to go through our labs since Dell’s XPS 15 a few months ago. The Blade uses a new OEM-specific i7-3632QM that is essentially the same as the i7-3612QM in the Dell, except with 100MHz faster clocks. Performance-wise, it falls in roughly where you’d expect a 2.2GHz Ivy Bridge quad, a bit faster than the SNB quads and the 2.1GHz i7-3612QM but a bit slower than the various IVB quads that are clocked faster, starting with the 2.3GHz i7-3610 and 3615QM. I'm going to skip straight to the CPU testing this time, as I find PCMark 7 to be far too heavily skewed by other factors (SSD, Quick Sync, etc.)
There’s not too much else to say about Ivy Bridge here; it’s just a really solid CPU that’s done well for Intel. The only complaint that really can be leveled against it is that even though the tick+ update focused heavily on a new on-die graphics architecture, Intel is still playing catch up to AMD’s far more advanced integrated graphics solutions. Intel’s HD 4000 is solid enough for anything not involving gaming though, and in these applications at least, it does its job well.
Traditionally, I try to avoid all Futuremark tests, but I decided to break my rule here with the PCMark 7 storage benchmark. I wanted to see how effective NVELO’s DataPlex caching solution was with respect to Intel’s Smart Response Technology as well as the SSD in the previous Blade. The PCMark Storage score is pretty impressive, beating the SRT-enabled Dell XPS 15 (which had a 32GB cache drive) and interestingly, the old Blade as well. Admittedly, the original Blade’s SSD wasn’t the fastest in the world, even though it used the same Marvell controller as the caching SSD in the new Blade (and the Intel SSD 510, amongst other notable SSDs). We saw better Storage benchmark scores out of faster SSDs in the ASUS N56VM, which was tested using a SandForce-based drive, and Alienware M18x R2 (two Samsung SSD 830s in RAID).
It was a pretty impressive showing, and I actually wasn’t put off by the hard drive too much in day to day usage. The one place where I missed the SSD? Shut down/restart and sleep/wake cycles. I timed a cold boot at 20.8 seconds, a solid 5 seconds off the pace of the old SSDified Blade, and it was definitely something you were reminded of every time the system was rebooted or woken from sleep. As much as the new caching solutions help, nothing can touch the outright responsiveness of a real SSD.
59 Comments
View All Comments
VivekGowri - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
rMBP + Windows?Flunk - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
I've considered it, a lot of people have told me that it has throttling and overheating issues while gaming in Windows. Also the native resolution is really inconvenient for running windows programs on.Imp@sse - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
Why didnt you compare the MSI GT70 ONE?JarredWalton - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
You mean the iBUYPOWER CZ-17? Or are you talking about a different GT70 chassis?AppleRules123 - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
I can't believe how much this sucks. This laptop is a blatant rip-off of the MacBook Pro from Apple. This is exactly the same as the MacBook Pro 2010 model, and the 2010 model is more powerful than this load of garbage. Who the heck do Razer think they are? Stealing Apple's designs for their laptops and making them worse. I'm getting sick and tired of industry clowns stealing Apple's innovations. Apple should definately sue Razer for this joke of a laptop.piroroadkill - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
If you're not a shill, I feel pity for you.Still, great comment.
VivekGowri - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
That comment made my day.TareX - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
This laptop is exactly what I want: A portable, good looking 17" laptop with enough horsepower to play most my games at decent fps. That's it. Of course I know it's no 680M, but there are currently no laptops with the 680M that aren't as thick as bricks. I'm buying this as soon as I can afford it, which should be within the next two months. If a similarly (or comparably, at least) thin laptop with a 680M makes an appearance, I'll get that one. I'm not interested in Switchblade UI or the extra panel (unless you can use it for foreign letter input, which Razer hasn't implemented yet), so I'm really getting this because of the extremely unique blend of good looks and good specs. The price comes with the rarity of this blend.NeBlackCat - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
Can we please have a 1920x1200 product please?AppleRules123 - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Get a retina MacBook. It's way better than this load of garbage.