Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 laptop review: Almost as fast but so much cheaper

[Redaktion]

We all prefer to have the GeForce RTX 5090 configuration, of course, but when the RTX 5080 option is $1000 less expensive, the slower SKU suddenly becomes so much more attractive. The performance deficit between the RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 can be narrower than one might expect.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Razer-Blade-16-RTX-5080-laptop-review-Almost-as-fast-but-so-much-cheaper.1017646.0.html

[joeh]

How did you test the 4k gaming performance? Which cable/screen combo did you use? I assume this should be able to play 4k games on an external screen decently well, right?

[desktop PC is cheaper]

960 Hz
Amplitude: 44 %

Since this is an OLED, I wonder how bad 960 Hz are for the eyes.

The frequency of 960 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

What is "most" in %? Could be over 50%.

3500 bucks for 32 GB soldered RAM and 16 GB VRAM (know that even 16 GB VRAM isn't super future-proof, even today, let alone when the PS6 comes out (rumored release: late 2027 and starting from then, the 16 GB VRAM may become not enough)) (AAA games are developed for consoles in mind first and their VRAM amount)? The display is also only 400 nits (I personally like an glossy OLED, but 400 nits glossy OLED = 300-350 matte IPS when it comes to reflections).

3dmark.com/search - Steel Nomad:
5070 Ti desktop: Average score: 6905 (33% faster and it costs less than a third (1000 bucks), what a poetry)
5080 (notebook): Average score: 5188

[Lower amplitude better]

I wonder how bad 960 Hz are for the eyes.
...
What is "most" in %? Could be over 50%.

Bad. That's really bad. Ideally you want the amplitude to be as low as possible (i.e. 10% or lower)

I don't think I've ever seen above 50%. So over 40% is like what are they even doing, are they even trying?