'Razer Blade' laptop using the GeForce 555M... underpowered?

Well Its not that bad really look here.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-555M.419...

There are more than one version. The real kicker here is your res. at 720p you could max most games out at 1080p it would struggle quite allot. all in all not a bad vid for a laptop I think. I hear what you mean on price but they wouldn't sell it if it didnt sell. And a 3000 dollar laptop is stupid no mater who you are go look at clevo laptops and get that 560m with i7 for 2000$...

Thent

I was looking to buy the Razor around Christmas time but found out:

1) it uses a crappy 555M
2) it uses a Dual core i7 not a quad core and last but not least
3) it does not have a built in CD/BD ROM/Player

So while it is very nice looking, light weight and features a fancy programmable number pad it is definitely not a gaming machine.

I instead spent $300 less on a m17x with 2860QM true quadcore chip, GTX 580m true gaming chip, lots of ports and built in CD/BD ROM and I recycled my old 256GB SSD for fast file access and used the 500GB drive it came with as a storage drive since it supports two drives.

I couldn't be happier with the decision, tons more performance and function at a cheaper price. Yes it is not light weight and thin but it stomps the crap out of Blade in performance.

The lack of a BD player doesn't bother me so much, because it's a gaming laptop, not a multimedia laptop. The one major feature about the Razer that draws me to it is the size and weight. True, there are plenty of gaming laptops, but those are 10-12 pound bricks with 30 minutes of battery life. I'm sick of hauling around 10+ pound laptops than can only really be placed on a desk and always plugged in.

Anyway, the point of this laptop is to make it portable. The Razer is around 6 pounds I believe, with a 17.3 inch screen. As for the video card, we have yet to see how it performs, so I will reserve my judgement until I see real-world benchmarks and tests. Until then, I'm just speculating, because the 555M does not sound very promising. Other benchmarks of the 555M scores Skyrim at high detail around 20 fps, and Deus Ex in "ultra detail" at 4 fps. Even StarCraft II at ultra detail is below 20 fps.

So I'm hoping they modified the crap out of that 555M, because the configuration of memory type and clock speeds can make a huge difference. Otherwise, I don't think I would pay $3,000 for "ultra-light" (for a gaming laptop), but mid-range performance. That's just a status symbol, for showing off at LAN parties.

I don't really care about BD either but it has to physically have some kind of CD Drive which the Razor doesn't. You would have to tote around an external drive for CD access.

I don't know if you realize but if you are going to game you will HAVE to have it plugged in because when a laptop is on battery (every laptop that I know of), reverts the CPU to low power including the GPU, this means your 2.5Ghz CPU is now like 800Mhz and the GPU is also down to a crawl so you couldn't game anyways. You can't disable it because its bult into the bios.

Also, another reason I picked an Nvidia GPU was because it has Optimus and uses the built in video when not gaming so I can surf for almost 5 hours on battery and you could watch a movie over 2 hours long as also on battery. The GPU only kicks in when you actually game in which case you would have to be plugged in either way.

With this rig I can game Skyrim at 1920x1080 at Ultra settings and tweaked even higher in the mid 50fps to high 60fps, simply stunning visuals. I'm pretty sure the Blade can't do that.

I feel like Razer, with the Blade, are trying to say that the portability and form factor they're going for is preferable to the big block plastic heat boxes Alienware and Asus are pushing. They're video seems to assert that most people who are looking for performance like that don't need "laptops" they need "desktop replacements" or just a desktop. I can't say I disagree, if you want big numbers, just build your own desktop, I don't think anyone would disagree that that's a cheaper and more gratifying path. But as a LAPTOP, I think the blade is perfect, even with the compromises it makes.

Seeing as Razer isn't a proven company, it makes sense that they'd have to pay more for the parts that went into their first product, I see prices coming down in future models. But even with the Blade, compare it to something like a Macbook Pro 17 inch, the actual FPS data I've seen has it working just as well the Alienwares and Asus' out there, of course choppier at higher resolutions, but I feel like that's an acceptable compromise. The Blade is the same price as the MDP 17 inch with SSD, but the Switchblade UI essentially gives you the Nostromo (One of Razer's most popular peripherals) for free!

Also, I dunno about you, but every time I see someone pull out one of those bulky Alienware laptops, you can see them sort of cringe while trying to get them set up on whatever surface while drawing glances from the people around them trying to figure out wtf that massive glowing thing is.

Just my two cents.