I want the new Razer LaptopFollow

It's so pretty!

Seriously, seriously pretty.

That price is definitely an issue, but I love the innovation this thing allows for. If it gets a large enough market, then a legitimate gaming pc market might form that allows for more options and specs.

The fact that intel and razer worked together to optimize it specifically for certain specs just makes me even happier. :)

But still, it's so pretty. If I had 3 grand to toss around (even for another pc in general) I would seriously consider it. If they ever release a $1500 model...

I had never even IMAGINED replacing a trackpad with a touchscreen. But the minute I saw it I was all "WHY ARE WE NOT ALREADY DOING THIS?"

The only complaint I have about the keyboard is the way they've done the arrow keys. But I can't say it surprises me, either. And once you adjust to it, it would be fine.

And I love the whole look.

lolwut?

My laptop is 6.2 pounds and I can't say I've ever ONCE noticed its weight or felt it was heavy in any way.

Also, Kotaku says it is 5 pounds. Do you have a different source?

Also, your thunderbolt comment strikes me as ridiculous. This is a laptop built with very specific parameters (and specifically for gaming). If the extra 5gbs theoretical maximum wasn't necessary for reaching those specs, then why would they include it? USB 3.0 is likely more than sufficient, and more attractive considering the current state available peripherals.

Plus, I imagine this a laptop specifically catering to people who want a gaming rig but would also need a laptop (like me). Just with more cash. The fact that it allows you to do high-quality gaming on the go would be VERY attractive to many people.

Would I pay 3k for it? No. But there are very few things I would pay that much money for. If it were to go down to $2k, it would be another story.

Also, how exactly do you plan to use an external screen if one of the reasons you'd be buying this LAPTOP is mobile gaming? My parents actually have a 17" laptop. Is it quite large? Yes. Larger than I'd want my laptop to be? Probably. But would I want that size on a gaming laptop? Probably.

And comparing laptop specs to desktops is, generally speaking, an absurd thing to do. If you are buying a laptop, it's because you want to be mobile. No matter how much you spend on a desktop, it doesn't offer that feature. Do you pay a lot more for the feature? Yes. But it's up to the buyer to decide if that matters to them or not.

Does anyone actually need a mobile rig for gaming though? >_> I can understand needing a laptop for business and school work, but i've never understood the purpose of the expensive gaming laptops. Buy a 500 laptop that can do word processing, powerpoints and web surfing, then spend the remaining 2500 on a desktop that is better in every way than this thing.

A pound is apparently heavy when we're talking about consumer electronics; ask all of the iPad detractors who say it's "too heavy" at a pound and a third.


Razer's website says 6.9 lbs.


Thunderbolt isn't just a data port, though. It can run displays, HDDs, etc. And because it's dual-channel, it can send/receive at the same time, meaning that you can essentially hook up multiple peripherals to the same port with no noticeable loss in speed.

USB 3.0 is actually the less desirable, BTW. Intel and Apple are both completely behind Thunderbolt, and while peripherals are still fairly expensive, mini-Display Port monitors aren't, and they're compatible with Thunderbolt.


But you're their market. Professionals with the kind of money to drop on this kind of product don't care about the portability because they likelihood is that they'll be at home sometime in the next few days. Their laptop that they take with them is—90% of the time—office/IT department-issued. Another 7 lbs on top of the 5-6 lbs of that laptop? Yeah, sure.

The market for gaming laptops is basically college students, who don't have the kind of cash to waste on a $3k laptop.


Uh, because a ~$300 monitor gets you a 27" display that's a hell of a lot bigger than your dinky 17" display, and all it takes it popping the cord into the laptop when you're at home (which is probably most of the time). Keep that display at school and take the laptop when you go home. Get a 15" laptop instead.


That's my point though. Let's compare this computer to a non-gaming laptop (which can still be used for gaming quite well): a Macbook Pro 15".

With a SSD, a 15" MBP would benchmark very close to the Razer at a lower price point. ($2599 for the MBP, $2800 for the Razer, and keep in mind that the MBP is a quad-core, the Razer is only dual-core)

That's not even a gaming laptop. That's a laptop for video editors and other professionals in the graphics industry.

It's a terrible laptop. Until it drops to ~$2000, it's a complete waste of money.

Yeah you can. The 15" MBP uses a higher power i7 (quad-core), has a much faster HDD (SSD), the same amount and kind of RAM (but probably higher quality), and the only thing that it lacks is a 2 GB GPU.

Of course we can't tell exactly how it'll benchmark, but all of those things add up to a fast computer, one that will easily keep up with the Razer Blade.

The best part? The current line of MBPs have been out for ~6 months at this point, while the Blade isn't even on sale.

I think you are underestimating the power of the newer generation chips. The i3 dual core chips are competing with (and often beating) decent i5 quad cores from the last generation.

I think one of the biggest aspects of these machines is that Razer is managing all the necessary updates. The players no longer need to worry about updating drivers for various parts/ensuring compatibility--all that will be done by Razer, who will likely be testing all the new games to ensure they work properly.

That's pretty attractive, actually.

Plus, most people (even gamers) just don't want to build their own computers. That's easily the minority. This is a dedicated gaming PC engineered specifically with proper gaming parameters in mind (and will likely last many years, based on those specs, before you start to feel the need to upgrade). Because, remember, these are people who wouldn't want to upgrade anything anyway. MAYBE a new GPU, but that's it--most just use the same computer with the same parts until they want a new one.

Is it expensive? Sure. But if mobile gaming is attractive and you don't consider building a rig viable, it's a very nice option for you.

Oh, not to mention that as a PC, you'll definitely be able to play any game that comes out. It doesn't matter how good your macbook's specs are if you aren't going to put Windows on it too (or Linux, I suppose)--way too many games still don't support Macs for them to be considered a viable gaming option. And that doesn't even seem to be changing, actually. At least not at a speed worth commenting on.

If you're well-informed, you can buy the same rig for much cheaper, but let's look at Alienware prices. The equivalent rigs are about $2k. Only $800 more for a laptop with some nice additional features and full driver support? That doesn't strike me as a bad deal (IF you aren't willing to build your own rig).

Meh. Having a 7200 HDD on a so called gaming rig is silly and a deal breaker.

Edited, Aug 28th 2011 2:38pm by Paskil

Because PCs get sh*tty ports of games designed to run on six year old systems? Exhibit A: "From Dust"?

Edited, Aug 28th 2011 5:46pm by Jophiel

somebody sounds a little ticked off that there's a more expensive option than mac...

That comment had nothing to do with their specs and everything to do with the OS. The number of games that are mac compatible is still pitifully low. Unless you intend to put Windows/Linux on it, you aren't going to be doing much gaming anyway.

referenced post deleted.

Edited, Aug 29th 2011 7:05pm by KTurner