The New Razer Blade: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Vivek Gowri on October 3, 2012 5:40 PM ESTRazer Blade (late 2012) - Display
Razer stuck with the AUO B173HW01 V.5 panel for the updated Blade. The 17.3” 1080p display is a good one, and we had no real issues with it last time around. This one was brighter and more accurate than our original Blade’s display panel but also had a slightly poorer contrast ratio. These metrics are all based on relative quality of different manufacturing batches of the same display, so it’s all up to the panel lottery gods. As before, color gamut and viewing angles are stellar (by TN standards, at least).
I asked Min about the possibility of seeing an IPS panel somewhere down the road when I met him at PAX this year. He seemed relatively unenthusiastic about it, citing concerns about display response time (I imagine that cost, too, was a factor). The AUO panel being used is high quality enough that it’s not a strict necessity for Razer to go IPS yet, especially considering that workstation-grade machines are some of the few 17” systems to feature IPS displays at present. But as we go forward and IPS panels become commonplace in larger displays (they’ve already started popping up in midrange 15.6” notebooks like the Sony VAIO SE and Vizio CT15), Razer will want to make the jump.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.