Razer Blade Stealth (i7-8565U, GeForce MX150) Laptop Review

[Redaktion]

The new Blade Stealth proves that not all GeForce MX150 GPUs are created equal. It's the fastest 13.3-inch Ultrabook we've tested with graphics performance just shy of a GTX 960M and in a sleek package the size of a MacBook Pro 13.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Razer-Blade-Stealth-i7-8565U-GeForce-MX150-Laptop-Review.376656.0.html

[Wiwiwiweeeee]

I think the t480s i5 with mx150 is faster then the stealth. It's only 100-200g heavier but has much less thermal throttling and higher cinebench multi score. Only the single core score is lower. The t480s is also currently cheaper. You can also add a second m.2 pcie SSD in the wwan slot, although stuck at 1x and needs to be 2242 single sided.

It would be interesting if you would test the stealth with the i5 And undercoating.

[Toruss]

This is the first year I find Razor laptops interesting. I like that for now they're taking on a more flexible approach

They could've used 16:10, 14" displays and use the extra space to add a few ports, a RAM slot, and improve speaker quality.
I find 13" just too small to do anything since my laptop is my sole device, especially where an external monitor is not available. Also when comparable alternatives like the mentioned T480s or LG Gram can upgrade to 40GB of RAM, soldering it for absolutely no reason is a too blatant of a deal-breaker for me.

Messing up the fundamentals like for instance a keyboard is also hard to overlook. I press them every few minutes, every single day - the Shift keys, Page buttons, Home End and functions. They are indispensable for even the most simple tasks as writing down a few pages or editing PDFs once you effectively assimilate them into your workflow.

Sounds like nitpicking, but it's quite exasperating that no manufacturer is willing to take some risks and make an investment into making a perfect laptop.

And the early reviews are spot on. The price of every configuration of the Stealth should be at least $300 cheaper to have any competitive edge against what is out there. And Razor, provide more config options if customized orders are too much of a trouble to ask for.

[anon]

This looks to me to be the very first laptop with USB type-C ports on both sides of the laptop, AND has USB type-A ports. This means:

1. I can use my existing type-C charger
2. I can charge from either side
3. I can simultaneously charge and connect my type-C external monitor
4. I can leave my wireless mouse adapter in one type-A port while leaving another free for a thumb drive

Not having a proprietary charge port also means that I won't have a device-specific adapter lying around, and that this laptop won't complain when charging over type-C. My XPS has severe GPU throttling when charging over type-C compared to using the barrel charger, for example.

This is unique, and exactly what I have been waiting for in a laptop. I'm surprised that this I/O layout does not get more attention. I so very much wish to see more of this in the future.

[fan]

The price is absurd at this point, you can get thin and light 144hz laptops for $1600 like the gs65, aero 15x, even base model blade 15.

[S.Yu]

The 150% increase in TDP translating to a mere ~50% increase in clock speed means the "performance" variant of the MX150 has far past an optimal region on the efficiency curve. It baffles me why they didn't go with a slightly underclocked 1050 Max-Q instead. They could probably squeeze ~30% more performance out of the same power profile, with Optimus it won't even affect idle or light load power consumption, and the slight increase in cost is nothing compared to their margins.

[Geo]

Not sure why your continuing hate for the MSI PS42.  I've been using it since August and am loving it.  Yes, it doesn't have Thunderbolt which I don't need but for doing photography work and gaming, the screen and fast MX150 were both important. 

[Allen.Ngo]

I think the t480s i5 with mx150 is faster then the stealth. It's only 100-200g heavier but has much less thermal throttling and higher cinebench multi score. Only the single core score is lower. The t480s is also currently cheaper. You can also add a second m.2 pcie SSD in the wwan slot, although stuck at 1x and needs to be 2242 single sided.

It would be interesting if you would test the stealth with the i5 And undercoating.

The T480s uses the 10 W version of the MX150 and its 3DMark 11 GPU performance is 28 percent slower than the Blade Stealth. You can see our review page for it here
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-T480s-i7-8550U-MX150-Max-Q-Laptop-Review.290784.0.html

Not sure why your continuing hate for the MSI PS42.  I've been using it since August and am loving it.  Yes, it doesn't have Thunderbolt which I don't need but for doing photography work and gaming, the screen and fast MX150 were both important. 

The PS42 boasts the same 25 W MX150 as the Razer so performance is certainly similar, but it has just half the VRAM (2 GB vs. 4 GB). Off the top of my head, these are the only two subnotebooks that aren't using the 10 W MX150. Worth mentioning nonetheless, thanks for bringing that up!

[Allen.Ngo]

I think the t480s i5 with mx150 is faster then the stealth. It's only 100-200g heavier but has much less thermal throttling and higher cinebench multi score. Only the single core score is lower. The t480s is also currently cheaper. You can also add a second m.2 pcie SSD in the wwan slot, although stuck at 1x and needs to be 2242 single sided.

It would be interesting if you would test the stealth with the i5 And undercoating.

The T480s uses the 10 W MX150 and GPU performance on 3DMark 11 is 28 percent slower. You can see our review page on the unit here. It's definitely more serviceable, but ThinkPads tend to target a difference audience than Razer
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-T480s-i7-8550U-MX150-Max-Q-Laptop-Review.290784.0.html

[alysdexia]

thin -> fine; length -> breadth; thickness -> heihth; faster -> swifter; short length -> slim span; shortened -> shrunk; larger -> greater; will -> shall -> does; travel -> fare -> stroke; away from -> fro; would -> should; nice < niais < nescius := not-skilled -> well; faster -> swifter; will -> shall; larger -> greater; thickness -> depth; fast -> swiftly, swift; will -> shall; should -> ouht; faster -> swifter; will -> shall; long periods -> long; drop -> drops; much less -> much lesser; larger -> bigger; will idle -> idle; would -> should; shorter -> slimmer; will be -> are; will not -> does not; will very likely -> should; much less -> much lesser; thin -> fine, squat; shortened -> skimped

a partial work-in-progress list of best GPUs by watt class, speed/watt, and speed/price (can't attest to underclocking/overclocking); needs the 2018 GT 1030 at 20W:

G3D Mark 2018: W, P
15: Iris Pro P580, 2089: 139, 5
80: P4000 Max-Q, 9082: 113,
90: GTX 1070 Max-Q, 9163: 101,
75: P2000, 7526: 100, 18
105: P4000, 10447: 99, 13
47: P1000, 4476: 95, 14
110: GTX 1080 Max-Q, 10232: 93,
30: M620, 2796: 93,
25: MX150, 2140: 85,
40: P620, 3428: 85, 20
175: RTX 2070, 14261: 81, 29
50: WX 4100, 3938: 79, 16
120: GTX 1060, 9034: 75, 38
150: GTX 1070, 11250: 75, 34
295: RTX 6000, 21366: 72, 3
17: 930MX, 1197: 70,
180: GTX 1070 Ti, 12241: 68, 32
250: RTX 2080 Ti, 17075: 68, 13
45: K1200, 3027: 67, 10
16: 920MX, 1059: 66,
60: GTX 750 Ti, 3739: 62, 13
55: M2200, 3458: 62,
4.4: HD 8350, 265: 60, 2
130: WX 7100, 7903: 60, 16
210: Vega 56, 12297: 59, 36
145: GTX 970, 8606: 59, 21
100: GTX 980M, 5907: 59,
165: GTX 980, 9608: 58, 16
23: 940MX, 1336: 58,
7: HD 7470M, 407: 58,
35: E9173, 1996: 57,
13: HD 7550M/7650M, 732: 56,
235: GP100, 12843: 54,
68: K2200, 3570: 52, 10
33: FirePro M4000, 1610: 49,
20: HD 7690M, 998: 49,
12: 710M, 567: 47,
125: R9 M395X, 5757: 46,
185: RX 580, 8420: 45, 44
28: HD 7750M, 1191: 42,
43: FirePro M6000, 1727: 40, 5
19: GT 720, 717: 37, 14
85: HD 7790, 3075: 36, 23
122: GTX 680MX, 4353: 35,
26: W2100, 499: 34, 8
275: R9 Fury, 9175: 33, 23
51: K2000, 1719: 33, 10
225: K6000, 7604: 33, 8
18: R5 M30, 597: 33,
190: R9 380X, 6194: 32, 12
170: GTX 670, 5368: 31, 11
350: Vega Frontier, 11069: 31, 11
32: GT 640M, 960: 30,
64: GTX 645, 1928: 30,
95: R7 260, 2891: 30, 32
140: MXRT 7500, 4319: 31,
195: GTX 680, 5673: 29, 10
220: W8100, 5987: 27, 6

[flamo]

I think you should add overall electronical stability in your review, for example the usb port stability. I bought an ASUS zenbook after read your review then I found it's incomparable with my old dell because usb ports are super unstable especially during charging. which can be a decisive factor for many applications.  >:( >:( >:(

[Phoneutria]

"Both USB Type-C ports are capable of charging the system"
I think this is not true.
One USB-C port is TB3 and charging
Second USB-C port is only for data.
I know this because I wanted to buy small e-gpu, but it was not possible to use e-gpu (15W charging) and charge laptop with the charger at same time.
So only option is to use bigger egpu with 65+W charging.

[Phoneutria]

It seems both USB-C ports are actually able to charge the laptop...

[AirieFenix]

"Both USB Type-C ports are capable of charging the system"
I think this is not true.
One USB-C port is TB3 and charging
Second USB-C port is only for data.
I know this because I wanted to buy small e-gpu, but it was not possible to use e-gpu (15W charging) and charge laptop with the charger at same time.
So only option is to use bigger egpu with 65+W charging.

Both USB-C connectors can be used for charging. Yes, only one of them is Thunderbolt but it charges over the USB-PD profile.

As for the eGPU, well it depends on the eGPU enclosure.

[ANDREW007CZ]

Could you please run DPC latency test on this unit?
Thank you for otherwise detailed review!!