Razer has already introduced a high-end Windows gaming tablet this year, so it’s pretty clear the company things you can pack some serious gaming chops into a small package. So I suppose it’s not a huge surprise that the company is following the Razer Edge tablet with a new ultrabook aimed at gamers.

It’s called the Razer Blade and it’ll be available soon for $1800 and up.

Razer Blade

That steep price gets you a portable notebook that weighs 4 pounds and measures 0.66 inches thick. It packs a 14 inch, 1600 x 900 pixel display, and more power than you’ll find in most ultrabooks, with features including:

  • Intel Haswell processor
  • Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics
  • Switchable NVIDIA GTX 765M graphics with 2GB of dedicated memory
  • 8GB of RAM
  • 128GB to 512GB of solid state storage
  • 3 USB 3.0 ports
  • Up to 6 hours of battery life (that’ll probably only happen if you’re not actually, you know, gaming)

This isn’t the first gaming laptop from Razer, but it’s the first model that falls into the ultrabook category.

Razer is also launching a new 17 inch Razer Blade Pro laptop which will have a 1080p display, a bigger battery, and a few other premium touches, along with a starting price of $2300.

via Gizmodo

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign


Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Subscribe to Liliputing via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,547 other subscribers

9 replies on “Razer introduces a 14 inch ultrabook aimed at gamers”

  1. Too bad it’s 1600×900. Maybe it’s enough for gamers but I’m typing this on an old 15″ laptop (16:10), exactly the same chassis width of the Blade and I have 1680×1050. Displays went backwards.

    1. 1680×1050 on a 15″ gives you about 132 PPI…

      1600×900 on a 14″ gives you about 131 PPI…

      So as far as number of pixels per inch goes they’re about the same but a screen’s quality isn’t determined by just the resolution!

      For example, you’re older screen is far more likely to be a low quality TN type screen, while this new system is far more likely to be using a high quality IPS display!

      Meaning this new screen should have a lot better viewing angles, better color saturation and color accuracy, better contrast ratio, etc.

      Newer screens coming out now can also use less power and thus help provide longer battery life…

      Besides, this is being marketed as a gaming system and system load requirements goes up nearly geometrically as you raise the resolution it has to run at!

      So wouldn’t be much good at gaming if it couldn’t provide very high fps for most games and too much resolution on a 14″ would be wasted on most people anyway as most would never be able to tell the difference!

      Extremely high resolution is mostly marketing unless you deal with devices you’re going to be holding very close to your face, like a phone or tablet.

      Laptops are used from a distance of usually arms length and you need less resolution to create the so called retina effect the further away from the screen you view it!

      Like a 40″ TV with 1080P only has a PPI of about 55, but it looks perfectly fine because anything over 62″ away is enough for it to look retina to the human eye!

      A 14″ screen only needs you to be over 26″ away for the same effect at the indicated resolution of 1600×900, and someone using a gaming controller in front of this will typically be over 3 feet away… While even typing should still keep the average person at that range!

      The general viewing distance between a PC monitor and a user is 20 to 40 inches, btw!

      1. Well, your comment is mostly on spot. I think that what I miss more is the extra 100 px on the vertical. The 16:9 ratio is really bad: the screen of this laptop is as wide as my own but it’s shorter, that’s why it loses 1″ on the diagonal. 16:9 displays were widescreen in the world of the small desktop’s 4:3 screens 15 years ago. They were shortscreens in the mid ’00 but unfortunately they became the norm after then. Still they are short. Buying a 16:9 14″ is a ten years step back for me.

  2. Hey, at least they managed a timely release date this time, before the components passed their use-by date…

    Wonder if they’re cooling that GTX 765M enough to prevent it from throttling.

    1. Looks like they are… The Haswell MCM and the Nvidia GPU both get dedicated heat sinks and case fans… air is drawn in from three directions, below for either side and one in the rear… along with two separate vents for the hot air…

  3. Wow, a gaming oriented computer that doesn’t have extra jagged edges, LED lights and multiple colors everywhere (well it does have green accents). Too bad it looks like a black MacBook Pro and not just a little.

    1. ya, I’ll put up with black MBP looks if I can avoid the dumb jagged edges and stupid LED lighting.

      Lets see what the discounted price is. 4 pounds and the size isn’t bad for that GPU.

      I think Dell won’t be able to milk their aging and overly big and heavy Alienware line anymore without putting a few new logs on the fire.

  4. and there was I just about to buy a Clevo W230ST. The two come annoyingly close in specifications, I guess the question is will I sacrifice some screen resolution and gain some annoying diagonal size along with a higher price tag for more shine… no 😛

  5. If I had a spare $1800 I’d be in for the 14 incher. Bought an Air last year though, not exactly in the need of a laptop. Have to say these things look so sweet. Much nicer than my old M11x.

Comments are closed.