• Razer Blade upgrade has an absurdly high-res screen and Nvidia 970M GPU
    42 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamesn.com/razer-blade-upgrade-has-an-absurdly-high-res-screen-and-nvidia-970m-gpu[/url]
I wonder how much better that display looks even if you are only rendering at half which is 1600x900.
Yipes. Costs too much as usual. The 1080p screen edition still costs $2,000, but just three years ago I got a 1080p laptop with a 660M (even now a decent card, though of course the 9xx line now blows all prices out of the water), for just $1,000. [editline]4th February 2015[/editline] I do appreciate them giving the market more >1080p laptops though; 720p are still ridiculously common. It has to start somewhere.
[QUOTE=Warship;47072945]I wonder how much better that display looks even if you are only rendering at half which is 1600x900.[/QUOTE] LCD upscaling looks terrible no matter how high the DPI.
14 inch gaming laptops are just horrid, my ROG 17,3 (g750jx ) inch Asus is good enough. 1080, 770 2GB card & a i7 that runs at 3gHz fine by me this laptop is so overpriced , jezus
[QUOTE=Siemz;47073096]14 inch gaming laptops are just horrid, my ROG 17,3 (g750jx ) inch Asus is good enough. 1080, 770 2GB card & a i7 that runs at 3gHz fine by me this laptop is so overpriced , jezus[/QUOTE] Can't see the appeal in a light, small gaming laptop?
Razer blade Really. I CTRL+F'd for cutting edge technology and found 0, I am very disappointed.
Did they call it Blade because of nVidia shield? lul
guys the blade has been a thing since like 2011
If only they switched the HDMI to a DisplayPort and bought it out here in the UK, I'd buy one instantly. For some, the weight and thinness is worth the extra cost. I'm prepared to pay more not to have a massive, fat, heavy, tacky 17 inch brick.
Is that... is that star citizen they are showing? As an example of a playable game? On [I]THAT?![/I] I'm sorry, but when high end fully specced desktops have major issues running that monstrosity of a game that's set to become the most graphically heavy game in history, I'm just laughing in disbelief.
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;47073200]Is that... is that star citizen they are showing? As an example of a playable game? On [I]THAT?![/I] I'm sorry, but when high end fully specced desktops have major issues running that monstrosity of a game that's set to become the most graphically heavy game in history, I'm just laughing in disbelief.[/QUOTE] It's also still in development. How can you be so sure that a still fairly high end system won't even be able to [I]run it[/I]?
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47073127]Can't see the appeal in a light, small gaming laptop?[/QUOTE] Well my laptop is around 3KG, I believe. Which I think is really okay for what it has on board besides that, no I do not see the appeal in a small gaming laptop.
That resolution on a 14" screen is simply overkill, not to mention a touch screen on a gaming laptop... I'd rather have smoother FPS on native 1080p, than risk frame drops.
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47073212]But developers are saying these days that 30 FPS is acceptable and cinematic![/QUOTE] 30 fps is better than no fps. Id rather have a stable 30 over an unstable 60
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47073037]LCD upscaling looks terrible no matter how high the DPI.[/QUOTE] Not if it's a clean 2x, 3x, 4x etc upscale. Terribleness arrives when you are stretching pixels and mushing shit together.
[QUOTE=Warship;47072945]I wonder how much better that display looks even if you are only rendering at half which is 1600x900.[/QUOTE] That's a fourth.
[QUOTE=Siemz;47073242]Well my laptop is around 3KG, I believe. Which I think is really okay for what it has on board besides that, no I do not see the appeal in a small gaming laptop.[/QUOTE] Portability is awesome. I have a 13.3" gaming laptop with a 1080p screen and great specs. It's really nice to have something so portable and powerful. [editline]4th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Lizzrd;47073945]Not if it's a clean 2x, 3x, 4x etc upscale. Terribleness arrives when you are stretching pixels and mushing shit together.[/QUOTE] Well, turns out that's actually not always the case. Been reading up on people using 3200 x 1800 screens. Those who tried running them at 1600 x 900 resolution with the expectation of pixel-perfect scaling were surprised to find that the result was actually blurry and ugly.
The model without the ultra HD touch screen is $2,800CAD for the 512GB model. Wow. 2.0MP webcam lol. At the price point they're selling these fucking things for it should be AT LEAST a 720p if not 1080p webcam.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;47076377]The model without the ultra HD touch screen is $2,800CAD for the 512GB model. Wow. 2.0MP webcam lol. At the price point they're selling these fucking things for it should be AT LEAST a 720p if not 1080p webcam.[/QUOTE] Isnt 2MP slightly above 1600x1200
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;47076516]Isnt 2MP slightly above 1600x1200[/QUOTE] It could be a few aspect ratios but yeah 1600x1200 would be [i]about[/i] 2MP. I mean, 1920*1080 is literally about 2 million, that's what 2 megapixels means v:v:v chunkymonkey might have gotten confused because phones typically have cameras with resolutions much higher than their screen res, ie my smartphone has a 720p screen but takes 5MP (2592x1944) photos, so they probably mentally associate very high megapixel values with lower resolutions.
[QUOTE=Elspin;47076533]It could be a few aspect ratios but yeah 1600x1200 would be [i]about[/i] 2MP. I mean, 1920*1080 is literally about 2 million, that's what 2 megapixels means v:v:v chunkymonkey might have gotten confused because phones typically have cameras with resolutions much higher than their screen res, ie my smartphone has a 720p screen but takes 5MP (2592x1944) photos, so they probably mentally associate very high megapixel values with lower resolutions.[/QUOTE] Well isn't it a bit different when it comes to webcams though? Since it's being advertised at 2MP that would be referring to the quality of the still pictures it can take but it's video resolution is usually far lower than it's MP rating. For instance I have a 1080p webcam that's 15MP. they also have a 720p model that's 8MP. So I guess what I'm getting at is that generally, if it has a low MP rating then it's video resolution is gonna be pretty shit. Because lets face it, who's using a fucking webcam to take pictures these days? Webcams aren't generally known for there spectacular image quality. I'm one of those plebs who was taught to think that more MP = better quality and I sometimes still do. Curse you camera manufacturers!!
[QUOTE=cdr248;47073375]30 fps is better than no fps. Id rather have a stable 30 over an unstable 60[/QUOTE] if the game can't go above 30fps with my 770 I think I'd rather just not buy it at all
For less than half the price of this laptop I purchased 4 airsoft guns, 50 co2 cartridges, a can of green gas, and a couple extra mags.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;47077149]Well isn't it a bit different when it comes to webcams though? Since it's being advertised at 2MP that would be referring to the quality of the still pictures it can take but it's video resolution is usually far lower than it's MP rating. For instance I have a 1080p webcam that's 15MP. they also have a 720p model that's 8MP. So I guess what I'm getting at is that generally, if it has a low MP rating then it's video resolution is gonna be pretty shit. Because lets face it, who's using a fucking webcam to take pictures these days? Webcams aren't generally known for there spectacular image quality. I'm one of those plebs who was taught to think that more MP = better quality and I sometimes still do. Curse you camera manufacturers!![/QUOTE] If they say it's 15MP and it can only record 1080p video then technically they're lying. Typically what they mean is that they use techniques involving repeated captures and tweaking in software to add more detail to the image through additional processing, which is extremely misleading. Basically when you look at a webcam, you have to look at the megapixels provided by the sensor, not their advertised megapixels. IE: [url]http://www.logitech.com/en-roeu/product/hd-pro-webcam-c920[/url] it says "15 megapixel snapshots". Not "a 15 megapixel camera", but "15 megapixel snapshots". It's not 100% clear on the resolution of the sensor itself but the specs say it's capable of producing video at 1080p (which is only 2 megapixels). So yeah, more megapixels is better, and 2 megapixels is 1080p (or the same amount of pixels at a different aspect ratio), but people are often sneaky on their spec sheets.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;47077176]For less than half the price of this laptop I purchased 4 airsoft guns, 50 co2 cartridges, a can of green gas, and a couple extra mags.[/QUOTE] How can you play witcher on it you're missing the entire point
[QUOTE=geel9;47074926]That's a fourth.[/QUOTE] Well since we are talking about two dimensions, it depends how you look at it.
[QUOTE=Warship;47079061]Well since we are talking about two dimensions, it depends how you look at it.[/QUOTE] Mathematics doesn't really care about that.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;47077176]For less than half the price of this laptop I purchased 4 airsoft guns, 50 co2 cartridges, a can of green gas, and a couple extra mags.[/QUOTE] what if you don't have legs / a medical condition that prevents you from doing that / don't want to play with toys
Dunno why you waited 2 fuckin days to say that. They aren't even good examples since obviously buying a laptop is the only alternative purchasing what I mentioned right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.