So this new Blade gets a 89% rating, which is an incredibly high score from notebook check, yet it fails to make the top 10 in lightweight gaming laptops against others rated quite a bit lower... Can someone explain the logic of these rating systems to me??????????????????

What delta levels were you able to get after calibration?

Review did not mention that the blade without extra hardware such as the razer core can only drive one external monitor.   Users on their web forum have been unable to get the hdmi and thunderbolt  in conjunction nor separate using daisy chaining  to power multiple external display. Razor support has a blanket statement about this limitation.

Some have suplimented with  display link powered USB hubs, but your nvidia 1060 card is then no longer in play, unless you want to go swapping cables around when you want to game or do cad. 

Considering most cheap  5 year old dells and lenovos have displayports that can drive 2 or 3 displays, there is no excuse why this new very expensive i7 quad core razer blade is hamstrung like this.

On a separate node, Razer limits you to a 14 day return policy and 1 year warranty, with no extended warranty offered by the manufacturer.  If you're buying a compact gaming machine that creates this much heat, you know these things aren't at the top of the reliability curve.  A more competitive 30 day return and 2-year warranty would go a long way to remain competitive to Gigabyte or Alienware and protect consumers from ending up with a $2000 brick.  Or at least offer a 2 or 3 year extended warranty for additional cost.

Most Notebookcheck reviews are quite comprehensive, with detailed discussions on every aspect of the computer as well as full comparison charts to others in the same class.

This review does not follow the same template as most others here.  Simply referring to an older review is not real helpful, even if the information is known with 100% certaintly to be unchanged.  For example, it would be great to see all the comments on the case quality, dimensions, speaker performance and other systems and then include newer competitors like the Aero 14 in the comparison charts.  I want to know about the keyboard and touchpad quality and not have to go to another review to read it, and then assume that the internal parts haven't changed vendors or something that might cause the results to change.  We're buying a $2000 notebook after all, please run the tests again and report on them!  If the numbers are the same, great, that means the results are even more likely to be accurate.

Other things are missing too, just compare to the thorough Aero 14 review.  Notably, one weakness of the 2017 Blade is system noise, yet this section barely mentioned noise and included none of the usual charts or graphs.  Battery runtime didn't include the usual "Idle" and "Load" numbers at all, and this perhaps is one of the key elements of the Kaby Lake update.  Why?

All in all, it seems like a very high rating was given, even though many key factors were not even evaluated at all.   In short, this review could be improved greatly by following the template of the Aero 14 or GS43VR and testing all of the subsystems and comparing them to current competitors.

Honestly, it's too bad competitors didn't include a fully functional Thunderbolt 3 port.  What the industry lacks is a niche for a thin and light 14" notebook with an HQ processor and on-board graphics.  Maybe throw in an optional 1050Ti for adequate gaming, but also one or two full TB3 ports to allow for an eGPU to provide 1070/1080 class gaming and save all the heat and noise from the notebook chassis.  After all, the 1050/1060 just isn't adequate for all the latest displays that are 2560 or 3840.  The Blade competitors really missed out on this opportunity in the gaming notebook class.  As is, it seems an ultrabook like Blade Stealth or Spectre can be had along with a Core or Akitio Node and 1070 for a similar price to the new Blade.  You get thinner and lighter with a better display and more powerful external graphics.

Quote from: AP on April 12, 2017, 15:42:59
There is a reason for that: Blade is thin and cannot handle the heat. Moreover, there was no 1050 Ti at that point.

Are you serious? So for $2200 USD I get a laptop that has a GTX 980-equivalent GPU but throttles down to a GTX 960 under game-load because it can't handle the heat? I'm sorry but exactly what is this crap you're spouting as being "OKAY" in any case?

If my main defense against Razer is from their garbage cooling solution and their claimed Macbook Pro unibody, aluminum chassis being unique and whatnot, then why is it bad to hate on them for such practices as listed above when MSI's GS73 and GS63 hold the same hardware and don't throttle back under full load like that? It's silly to spend that kind of money and make heavy compromises on the same hardware in the SAME CHASSIS as the competition that happens to cost LESS than what you paid for!

If you want to spend money on a garbage laptop that's more plagued with BS than all of Apple's line, then go waste your money, but don't sit here and tell me I'm wrong for using basic logic to determine when something is a bad deal and should be obviously be avoided, and then spreading that information to others so they don't also waste their money on an inferior product.

Let's break it down:

If you want the best specs and performance is of utmost importance, go with Aorus X3 Plus v7.

If you need long battery life, go with the Gigabyte Aero 14 and then replace its WQHD screen with an aftermarket/last gen's Full HD.

If you're on a budget, go with MSI GS43VR or a Clevo model of similar weight and performance.

If you don't need 32GB of memory and build quality is the only thing that matters, go with the Razer Blade 14.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
If I just want an ultrabook-specced device, there are choices like the Surface Pro ... I really don't think they are comparable.

You are obviously more biased than the reviewer so following is my very last reply to you. You mentioned a lot of laptops already so please go, read, compare, etc those reviews.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
DIMM slots & TB3 ports seem irrelevant

I will just mention that the original complaint was about expandability. It was important for that guy and, apparently, not important for you. This is the second reason why both of you cannot be objective.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
Again, I've got nothing against this, but someone may want to get as much performance as he could, after paying all that money.

Once more: the ratings do not include expensiveness of the devices directly to the best of my knowledge. Thus, this is not related to how biased the review is.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
5% is a huge difference for these top-end devices.

Agree.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
Battery is really not that improved, given that the previous model already managed ~7 hrs;

"that improved" is subjective. "+20% off-plug time" is objective. "+5% rating" is objective. You, basically, say that the review is biased because of your feelings. This is not an argument, of course.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
WQHD display

I will reply with your own words: "I've got nothing against this". To be more precise, me and a lot of others prefer FHD on small screens because it is cheaper. Whether it is reflected in the score I do not know.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
storage performance

Agree but FHD Blade 2016 is miles ahead of Aero in this test yet both receive similar scores. Does this mean that the reviewer is biased towards Aero? I would suspect so.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
slightly better CPU&GPU performance

GPU - yes but otherwise you give "alternative facts" here: Blade has +7% in PCMark. By the way, this is regardless of a slower storage in synthetic tests.

Quote from: paulc on April 13, 2017, 16:01:33
But are these things really worth that much of rating difference? More compact chassis, surely rather important; TB3 support, maybe, I don't know how many people actually use eGPU, multiple 4k monitors or high-speed drive arrays, the USB 3.1 port on Aero is already more than sufficient for myself. Apart from those, I really can't see anything of importance. And it just feels not enough, especially when considering the price tag.

So you say review is biased because "you do not know how many people actually use" Thunderbolt? I do not know any single reason to buy WQHD laptops. I do not need an ethernet adapter shipped with Aero at all. I do not need an SD card reader. I do not need this Blade either. Does this mean that the review is biased? No.

Quote from: AP on April 13, 2017, 12:11:02
I did not say that it is an ultrabook; I said that it successfully competes with them in terms of size and battery life. You mentioned best of the best and that already says something: while there is no DIMM slot in the Blade (XPS and Aero do have it), there is a full-featured thunderbolt 3 functionality. So it is more like a trade-off than "not worth buying it". At least, specs-wise.

If I just want an ultrabook-specced device, there are choices like the Surface Pro 4, less than 0.8kg & 9mm; most of the top ultrabooks on notebookcheck are less than 1.5kg, with the best one 1.2kg & 12.3mm. So, no, I really don't think they are comparable.
DIMM slots & TB3 ports seem irrelevant, so I don't get why that's a trade-off, certain notebooks do have both, like the Alienware 13. If there's any trade-off, they may sacrifice them for a slimmer chassis.

Quote from: AP on April 13, 2017, 12:11:02
Care about what exactly? The review basically shows that it is absolutely fine with games. The original comment was a complaint about scores in benchmarks. Well, some customers do care about it but it is not a deal breaker if you are choosing between FHD models.

I really don't know much about gaming, but 37 fps doesn't sound like "absolutely fine", as far as I know, that's more like something about 60 fps. Again, I've got nothing against this, but someone may want to get as much performance as he could, after paying all that money.

Quote from: AP on April 13, 2017, 12:11:02
I would rather look at frequences under full load. Because the overheating problems with previous models were very obvious under moderate gaming load as well. Since it is not the case here I assume Razer solveded it and keeps temperatures below 80C.

I'm not assuming anything; it's a simple problem, just run the test. Hope that some editor reading this would fill the blank.

Quote from: AP on April 13, 2017, 12:11:02
I cannot agree with that because the gain of 5% in rating (compared to the previous model) is absolutely justified: this unit works 9 hours unplugged and does not suffer from high temperatures. Compared to Aero, there is a plenty of improvements starting from thunderbolt 3 and ending with dedicated touchpad buttons and dual-channel memory. Compared to Macbook, well, better performance and a full-sized HDMI port.

5% is a huge difference for these top-end devices. Battery is really not that improved, given that the previous model already managed ~7 hrs; as for comparison with the Aero 14, I can also list a bunch of things that Aero is better: WQHD display, storage performance, slightly better CPU&GPU performance, screen color gamut, etc. But are these things really worth that much of rating difference? More compact chassis, surely rather important; TB3 support, maybe, I don't know how many people actually use eGPU, multiple 4k monitors or high-speed drive arrays, the USB 3.1 port on Aero is already more than sufficient for myself. Apart from those, I really can't see anything of importance. And it just feels not enough, especially when considering the price tag.

Quote from: paulc on April 12, 2017, 18:09:17
Be careful when you use the term "ultrabook", it has a formal definition by Intel, and I can't see that how is a laptop with GTX1060 and quad core i7 CPU "ultrabook" in any way. Comparable devices like XPS15, Aero14 and Macbook Pro 15 do have certain expandability, excluding the MBP.

I did not say that it is an ultrabook; I said that it successfully competes with them in terms of size and battery life. You mentioned best of the best and that already says something: while there is no DIMM slot in the Blade (XPS and Aero do have it), there is a full-featured thunderbolt 3 functionality. So it is more like a trade-off than "not worth buying it". At least, specs-wise.

Quote from: paulc on April 12, 2017, 18:09:17
Reasons behind the problem is not for consumers to care about. The question that should be asked is, is this important for the people who buy the device? I don't know, personally I don't care, as I don't do that much of gaming, but Razer talks about gaming all the time in their product page, so it seems pretty justified to care about this.

Care about what exactly? The review basically shows that it is absolutely fine with games. The original comment was a complaint about scores in benchmarks. Well, some customers do care about it but it is not a deal breaker if you are choosing between FHD models.

Quote from: paulc on April 12, 2017, 18:09:17
Maybe he(or she) means overheat under full stress, not in that game. I do notice that there is a screenshot missing for the frequencies & thermals under full stress, they include it for every other gaming notebook review, even some non-gaming ones. Further information will be appreciated.

I would rather look at frequences under full load. Because the overheating problems with previous models were very obvious under moderate gaming load as well. Since it is not the case here I assume Razer solveded it and keeps temperatures below 80C.

Quote from: paulc on April 12, 2017, 18:09:17
From my point of view, this review does seem, to say the very least, a little bit biased. Maybe that's because the attractive design always makes a good first impression, which explains why Apple desperately struggles to make their product 1mm slimmer...

I cannot agree with that because the gain of 5% in rating (compared to the previous model) is absolutely justified: this unit works 9 hours unplugged and does not suffer from high temperatures. Compared to Aero, there is a plenty of improvements starting from thunderbolt 3 and ending with dedicated touchpad buttons and dual-channel memory. Compared to Macbook, well, better performance and a full-sized HDMI port.

So the OpenGL score for Cinebench R15 is 53.4 fps, which is a lower score than a 960m...

Nice job Razer...next generation prices with last generation performance!

Quote from: AP on April 12, 2017, 15:42:59
"lack of expandability(worst in class)"

Well, the laptop competes in the class of ultrabooks lasting 9 hrs with minimal to no expandability.

"and high price"

Agree but this does not seem to be included in the rating since, typically, people want to buy the best laptop for the fixed price.

"As I understand all the tests were performed in Full HD resolution."

Nope, it is WQHD in Aero. Why would it be FHD on Ultra?

"This is crap."

Haters gonna hate.

"repaste jobs are done by licensed professionals"

Where may I have a license for that?

"They even put out a BIOS that limits your 1060 by power consumption"

There is a reason for that: Blade is thin and cannot handle the heat. Moreover, there was no 1050 Ti at that point.

"You had no problem showing all the faults of every Clevo"

Even you have problems with pointing out faults because, basically, overheat is your only concern. However, the reviewed Blade (unlike the Skylake model with 84% rating) had no overheat at all:

"The CPU temperature stabilized around 70 °C, die GPU just under 80 °C"

"Well, the laptop competes in the class of ultrabooks lasting 9 hrs with minimal to no expandability."

Be careful when you use the term "ultrabook", it has a formal definition by Intel, and I can't see that how is a laptop with GTX1060 and quad core i7 CPU "ultrabook" in any way. Comparable devices like XPS15, Aero14 and Macbook Pro 15 do have certain expandability, excluding the MBP.

"There is a reason for that: Blade is thin and cannot handle the heat."

Reasons behind the problem is not for consumers to care about. The question that should be asked is, is this important for the people who buy the device? I don't know, personally I don't care, as I don't do that much of gaming, but Razer talks about gaming all the time in their product page, so it seems pretty justified to care about this.

"However, the reviewed Blade (unlike the Skylake model with 84% rating) had no overheat at all"

Maybe he(or she) means overheat under full stress, not in that game. I do notice that there is a screenshot missing for the frequencies & thermals under full stress, they include it for every other gaming notebook review, even some non-gaming ones. Further information will be appreciated.


From my point of view, this review does seem, to say the very least, a little bit biased. Maybe that's because the attractive design always makes a good first impression, which explains why Apple desperately struggles to make their product 1mm slimmer...

No RJ45 port for a laptop gamer? That's a dealbreaker for sure!

For the record, I would have liked to have seen an oled display option to compete with Alienware.

We should know whether Razer fixed their mosfet issues on the new RB,
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BITrae8g9gM
Having to send your laptop back to Razer over a part not rated for the heat experienced within for $700 a pop only to have it replaced by the same vulnerable part is not acceptable. All internal parts should be rated for temp tolerance well above the heat they experience. It may not just be the Mosfet parts at risk, the discovery of the Mosfet noted other potential components at risk as well (some sitting directly under the heat sink were demonstrating odd failures).