Battery Life

Mobility goes hand-in-hand with battery life. The Razer Blade Stealth certainly fits the mobility part, with a small, thin, and light design which would be easy to take with you. But if you have to bring the charger with you, it’s less convenient. We’ve seen some impressive battery life numbers on Ultrabooks and other low-profile devices over the last couple of years, with the Dell XPS 13 and Microsoft Surface Book both hitting over 15 hours on our light test.

The Stealth has a slightly smaller than average battery size, at 45 Wh. I would say the average for an Ultrabook of this size would be around 50 Wh, with a couple below and a couple above. This is going to be a factor against the Stealth right out of the gate. The other factor against it is the high resolution display offerings. Baseline Ultrabooks generally come with a 1920x1080 display, and the lowest offered on the Stealth is a 2560x1440. The top model is 3840x2160, or four times the pixels of a 1080p display. This not only is more work to render images on for the GPU, the transistors used to drive the pixels also block the backlighting, necessitating a brighter, more power-hungry backlight.

We measure battery life with two standardized tests. The light test is simply web browsing, with the display set to 200 nits brightness. The heavy test loads many more pages, adds in a movie playback, and includes a 1 MB/s file download to keep the wireless NIC active. For 2016, these tests may be adjusted, but for now the existing tests give us lots of data points against previously tested devices. All browsing is done with Microsoft Edge as the browser, and keyboard backlighting is disabled.

Light Battery

Battery Life 2013 - Light

This, well there’s no way to sugar coat this. This is poor battery life for an Ultrabook in 2016. The UHD model unsurprisingly suffers even more than the QHD version, but both are below average. At just about 6.5 hours on the QHD one, it is getting very close to the same battery life as the Razer Blade 14, which is a full-fledged gaming notebook. The UHD model is 67 minutes less. If you are after the ultimate in mobility, then the Razer Blade Stealth is not the notebook for you.

Heavy Battery

Battery Life 2013 - Heavy

Adding in more CPU, NIC, and GPU shifts the balance on power draw away from the display, which is the main power draw on the light test. This pulls the UHD model a bit closer to the QHD version, with it only 51 minutes behind this time. But regardless, these heavy load times are far from the top of the Ultrabook class.

Normalized Battery Life

Battery Life 2013 - Light Normalized

Battery Life 2013 - Heavy Normalized

Removing the battery size from the equation gives us a better look at platform efficiency, since low efficiency can’t be masked by larger battery sizes in these scores.

The Stealth clearly has some work to do on efficiency. The best devices in the Ultrabook category can be in the 10-14 minutes per Watt-Hour range on the light test, and even the QHD version of the Stealth is only at 8.6. On the heavy test, it fares a bit better, but is still below the other devices.

This is Razer’s first kick at the can when building an Ultrabook. On the Razer Blade 14, the battery life is pretty decent for a gaming laptop. There are plenty of high draw components like a discrete GPU and quad-core processor to mask smaller inefficiencies of the platform. But, when looking at Ultrabooks, Razer is up against some of the biggest OEMs out there, and whom all are trying for that elusive top battery life score. There are missteps by the OEMs too, such as Dell having an issue with NVMe storage not going to sleep, which was later fixed with a BIOS update, but Razer needs to look at their platform at a component by component basis, and strive for better. Getting six or so hours out of a gaming notebook like the Blade 14 is pretty decent, but an Ultrabook in 2016 needs to be at least eight.

As an experiment, the Stealth was left running idle at the desktop at 200 nits, with just a script running to log the time every two minutes. Here it only got just 8:17, barely a squeak over eight hours, and this is with it doing nothing at all. Not everyone needs long battery life, but it’s going to be on a lot of people’s list when considering a notebook, so hopefully this will be addressed for future models.

Charge Time

The other half of the equation is charge time. This is generally limited by the AC adapter shipped with the device. In this case, that’s a 45-Watt adapter, and Razer uses the USB-C port as the charging port. The design of the charger is quite nice too, with a braided cord on the USB end and a very small adapter. One issue I’ve had with the charger though is that there is noticeable coil whine from the adapter, especially when the laptop is charged but plugged in. I’ve actually got three adapters, and all of them have some coil while, although one of them is significantly louder than the others.

Moving on the charging times, the charging time test is done with the machine idle at the desktop, and the display set to 200 nits again. Charge times are from whatever the laptop shuts off at (generally 5% battery) to 100% charge. Most devices charge pretty quickly up to 99%, and then trickle charge the last percent, so a charge graph is provided as well.

Battery Charge Time

At 190 minutes, the Stealth is amazingly right around the same time as the Blade 14. The similarities seem to never end, but the result is below average but not a huge amount.

It’s great to see Razer go with a USB-C charging cable. For most laptops, the 100-Watt power availability from USB-C is going to be enough, meaning there’s a good chance laptop cords will finally be universal. In fact, it’s very convenient that I can already charge this laptop with the same cord that I use for my phone, and vice versa, and especially when travelling it’s nice to see a move to a standard charging connector.

This section is not the strongest part of the Stealth. Battery life has been sub-par and the charging speed is below average as well, and compounded by a power supply that is not inaudible. It’s well designed aesthetically but the coil whine is annoying to the point where I disconnect the laptop when its charged.

Display Wireless, Speakers, Thermals, Noise, and Software
Comments Locked

66 Comments

View All Comments

  • ImSpartacus - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - link

    The battery life is disappointing, but at least seems to be alright otherwise.

    The keyboard appears like overkill, but at least you can presumably switch to a clean white light.
  • Keao - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - link

    It is overkill if you just want an ordinary ultrabook indeed. Needs to see if the glowing razer logo on the back can be deactivated too. (You can switch to plain white for sure given it works like the blackwidow chroma that I have)

    Battery life is really not great but is OK for the kind of processor they have isn't it? What's putting me a lil' off is the fact that to make it a gaming machine you do need to shell out at least some 750 additional bucks. Sure the external case will be re-used supposedly but I'm unsure about the future of this solution (Can evolve quite fast with a new Thunderbolt version and/or replacement of the PCI-e interface?)
  • zeroqw - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - link

    "Battery life is really not great but is OK for the kind of processor they have isn't it?" nope.. there are quite similar ultrabooks with at least 50% more battery life.
    Razer put a small battery in the laptop and if you add the backlit keyboard+glowing razer logo to the equation it just makes it even worse. Too bad because I love the design but the battery life is a deal breaker for me.
  • Duraz0rz - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - link

    You can turn off the logo LED thru Synapse.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - link

    Wont fix the battery being too small.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - link

    The battery size isn't the main problem; it's in the same general class as other 13" ultrabooks. The problem is that the laptop's efficiency is bad; if they were able to match their competitions efficiency they'd pick up an extra hour or two bringing the QHD model up to the average for a laptop of its size; and leaving the 4k one with only the penalty related to its ultra high res display (both more GPU work to drive it, and more transistors in the panel blocking a larger amount of the backlight).
  • ImSpartacus - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - link

    I think Razer is struggling with both the pixel race and needing to justify the existence of Core.

    Honestly, a 768p display would be perfect for a 12.5" laptop (maybe 900p for a buy-up). But then you could say that Razer should've made the Core a smidge thicker and put a modest dGPU in there for gaming.
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, March 30, 2016 - link

    Couldn't disagree more about the display. The sooner we get rid of low-DPI panels and the software ecosystem is forced to accept their existence, the better. The problem here isn't the display, it's a lack of engineering experience regarding power efficiency at Razer.
  • BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, March 30, 2016 - link

    I disagree with that. Higher resolution displays, while nice looking, offer little to no added functionality after reaching the point where it becomes necessary to scale the interface in order to retain visibility of objects displayed in it. At this point, they're part of the specifications for the sake of specifications war that's vital for product differentiation and marketing, but that's where it ends. Sacrificing capability as in the case of battery life to achieve a pointlessly high resolution shows particularly poor engineering. An Intel GPU in a 12.5 inch laptop display that is unable to drive games at much lower resolutions should be paired with a 1366x768 panel of decent quality with good viewing angles. Anything more than that won't benefit the end user regardless of how much they think they need more pixels.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, March 30, 2016 - link

    >should be paired with a 1366x768 panel of decent quality with good viewing angles.

    Except that's the thing. In the year 2016 there is no such thing as a 1366x768 panel of anything remotely decent quality. Panels of this size are just churned out by the factory for extremely low cost/low margin devices such as $300 laptops at Walmart.

    If you're paying ~$1500 for a premium laptop, you should expect an arguably premium display. If you can't play the game at 2560x1440, then run the game at reduced settings, and if that's not enough, begin lowering the resolution, too.

    Paying ~$1500 for a premium laptop also comes with the inherent notion you're paying for premium battery life, but you're not getting that here, either.

    Replacing a good screen on a laptop with a bad battery leaves you with a laptop with bad screen and bad battery and now you have an even worse value proposition than before.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now