DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
How is that even an i7... more like an i3. Unless it's some ULV variety (thus a "high end ULV"), which seems likely. If so...that seems pretty junky for games.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Razer Edge Pro Gaming Tablet
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
How is that even an i7... more like an i3. Unless it's some ULV variety (thus a "high end ULV"), which seems likely. If so...that seems pretty junky for games.
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,954
So because a manufacturer offers a certain laptop, it is successful? You also keep using the bullshit of "Google it" when the only information that would back you up is sales numbers, which tend to not be known. I can see how basically saying "Google how I am right" is a valid argument in your mind considering your posts
What is really sad, is that even with an 11.6" screen, the clevo has a much more powerful CPU and GPU then the POS Razer tablet, for less money lol. Considering the size of the Clevo laptop also kills your "its portable" argument for the tablet too, I would quit before you continue to destroy anymore of your own arguments.
Looking at the clock speed, it may likely be an i7-3517U (1.9GHz - 3.0GHz).
It performed around the same speed as the i5-3210M (2.5GHz - 3.1GHz).
But the the i7 TDP is 17W(ULV) compared to 35W of the i5.
Better Battery life.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Its also in the third paragraph of the article.
And keep in mind the edge PRO is the $1300 version that still comes with no lapdock or controller. The controller is $250 the lapdock is $200. Once you get all that you end up with a $1750 machine. And yet theres still a certain individual here that continues to argue how well priced it is.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Besides pointing out yet another laptop thats more powerful than this device for less money what is your point? Good reception and good sales do not always go hand in hand.
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 13,444
It is you who obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
cpubenchmark.net? CPU?
They also benchmark GPUs, tablets, smartphones, and other devices such as HDD and SSDs.
Fucking noob.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2005
- Messages
- 21,613
It is you who obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
cpubenchmark.net? CPU?
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/
So because a manufacturer offers a certain laptop, it is successful? You also keep using the bullshit of "Google it" when the only information that would back you up is sales numbers, which tend to not be known. I can see how basically saying "Google how I am right" is a valid argument in your mind considering your posts
What is really sad, is that even with an 11.6" screen, the clevo has a much more powerful CPU and GPU then the POS Razer tablet, for less money lol. Considering the size of the Clevo laptop also kills your "its portable" argument for the tablet too, I would quit before you continue to destroy anymore of your own arguments.
Now it is more obvious about your laptop knowledge.
You seems to just notice this laptop, whereas it has been in the market for quite a while now.
Head on to notebookreview forum, and you will get so much details on that popular laptop.
So now you skipped on the answers that I pointed out, and start telling me to quit?
It looks like that you have no more crap to bullshit about, and tell me to backoff so that you wont look stupid.
That clevo W110ER is no doubt a great portable gaming laptop.
But still, it is not fitted with a touchscreen, and not detachable to be a tablet.
It has its pro and cons compared to the Razer Edge.
But in the end, it depends on the type of users out there.
I almost bought the Clevo W110ER 6 months ago, but then I came across the Vaio S13.
Definitely not as powerful, but it comes with a 13" screen, 0.89" thick and weigh around 1.6kg compared to the 11" screen clevo that is 1.45" thick, and weigh around 1.8kg.
So, I sacrifice on some performance for a bigger but thinner and lighter laptop.
Luckily, my 640M LE can be BIOS MOD easily to a slightly above stock GT650M DDR3 performance without any issues.
But offcourse, you won't get it, especially if you keep being a cheapskate.
So, why do i defend the razer edge from you guys?
Coz you guys been talking crap coming out of nowhere about a technology that is rare and good to have in the future, while the price are quite affordable compared to other x86 tablet without a dedicated GPU, having no advantage of doing some medium to high gaming once it is docked into a keyboard.
It just turned into a normal laptop that can be use for work, and light gaming on the HD4000.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Its rare for good reason. Nobody wants it, nobody needs it, and with a ridiculous entry price nobody will buy it. I would be singing a different tune if the full package could be had at ~$750. That would be a realistic price but when its all said and done its twice that much.
You can always go with the 999.99 + keyboard only(199.99).
You haven't even answered my question on why other laptop/tablet that I've mentioned price near or more expensive than the the razer edge, but comes with a shitty spec that can do light gaming only(HD4000).
thedocta45
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,325
This thing is pretty cool.
It is nice to see that Razer is thinking outside the box.
Probably won't sell in large volumes but at least its an attempt to beef up portable gaming options.
And just a point to all the people saying just buy a laptop.
How do you plan on playing a laptop while your on a train or bus?
This form factor is a much better solution.
I know I won't be buying one but its a cool concept non the less.
It is nice to see that Razer is thinking outside the box.
Probably won't sell in large volumes but at least its an attempt to beef up portable gaming options.
And just a point to all the people saying just buy a laptop.
How do you plan on playing a laptop while your on a train or bus?
This form factor is a much better solution.
I know I won't be buying one but its a cool concept non the less.
You should've just directly link it to http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/
Fucking noob?
You still haven't reply back on your precious GTX 670M.
The truth hurts?
Coz it can't be transformed into a windows x86 tablet to run x86 apps on the go without a keyboard?
Hard to understand that?
A laptop only.
A laptop+tablet.
Again.
A laptop only.
A laptop+tablet.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
I dont give a shit what gimmick it adds. Overpriced is overpriced. But then again im arguing with a guy who knowingly bought an overpriced Vaio over more powerful options and thinks he got a good deal.
It's rare coz it's new, and not easy to be designed and made.
It needs to handle heat seriously.
A good design will lead to great heat management.
There are laptops that doesn't have a dedicated GPU but heated up much-much more higher than those with a dedicated GPU, smaller, and thinner.
A cheaper price of $750 is definitely worth wishing for.
But the thing is, it's not only Razer that is doing it. Other x86 tablets are priced around the same range too.
There...
A word of advice from a cheapskate who only cares about performance.
But yet, still recommend a laptop rather than a desktop.
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,954
Except as has been pointed out over a dozen times, you have to use the keyboard attachment that basically turns it into a laptop to play games other then touch screen based ones. Then there is the weight factor, it is 2lbs by itself, have fun holding that up for an hour. So why should someone spend $1k+ to play touch screen games on a tablet when you can spend $300 for a different tablet?
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,954
Holy crap, I thought it was $1k for the pro, $100 for the keyboard dock, and the controller came free.
So basically the Razer shill has been trying to justify spending $1750 to be able to do the same thing as a $1k laptop?
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
I didnt reccomend shit. If you need portable gaming buy a laptop. If you dont buy a desktop.
Dont put words in my mouth.
And no i am far from a cheapskate. I will pay for performance. If i wanted to pay for shiny fancy looks i would buy a mac. Its a machine, i want to get the most performance for my money.
If you want to buy a truck to pull a boat you buy a truck with power. You dont buy a wimpy truck because its prettier or has flip down DVD.
When talking about portable gaming the first thing you need to come to grips with is portable gaming is an oxymoron. You want to game on your portable device prepare to be tethered to electricity. That goes the same for this tablet and its reported 1 hour battery life during gaming on the base model. When you stop living in the fantasy that you will be gaming in your back yard or at the beach with it you realize its really all about getting said device from one tethered spot to your next tethered spot. Thats when weight becomes less and less of an issue.
Welcome to the PC gaming industry. Its all about getting the most performance for the money. All else is an afterthought. When you market a device to hardcore gamers with hardcore pricing and softcore specs there will be backlash. And the biggest mistake a company can make is trying to sell a gaming device that can barely game. This thing has a short lifespan right out of the gate due to its seriously weak graphics power. So yeah excuse me while i laugh at a $1750 price tag on something that gets shit stomped by anything graphically intensive made in the last 5 years.
Bah, why the hell do i bother...
thedocta45
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,325
I thought the whole point was that you didn't need a keyboard because of the controller that you snap the tablet into.
Are you also saying you can find a tablet for 300 bucks that has the specs to run windows 8?
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
*sigh*
![Zarathustra[H]](/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1723407683){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,469
I think the touch screen and tablet functionality is definitely worth a higher cost.
Tablets with touch screens are by no means a gimmick. They are the future.
I'd definitely pay a couple to a few hundred more for a multi-function computer that was both tablet and laptop.
There are certain things you can't do on a tablet, and then there are others for which it is MUCH better than the comparatively clunky and ergonomically disastrous laptop layout.
Extra cost is justified by the following:
- Touch screen adds cost
- Extra engineering to develop accessories allowing it to function as both laptop and tablet cost money
- Design to make heat dissipation work and have everything fit in a tablet which is thinner and has less space to put things than in a laptop definitely costs money
- And finally, uniqueness in the marketplace (name another x86 tablet with discrete graphics capable of gaming?) allows companies to charge more for their products.
They are the first to market on this, and as such it comes with a price premium. Pricing will likely go down as other companies eventually develop tablets with GPU's capable of playing real games, and not just those silly ARM-based app-like excuses for games.
If I didn't have a few projects I'm working on right now (new wifi possibly Unifi, HTPC build, new 50" HDTV) taking my cash elsewhere, I'd be interested in something like this. I'll probably wait until they get a little cheaper, and thinner than 0.8" though.
it's a good first step.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,469
I wouldn't buy a non-x86 tablet.
Just not worth it to me. It's just a big phone without - well - the phone.
So for me, the comparison is something like this:
On the one hand there are all the Intel HD4000 based tablets like the Acer Iconia and Microsoft Surface Pro.
On the other hand, for not that much more, there is this, with (almost) real graphics.
I wouldn't buy the pro version. I don't think the i7 CPU or 8 GB of ram are really needed in this form factor.
The base version is what I'd get, and I'd use it to play Civ 5 among other things, which has already been patched to have a windows 8 touch mode...
Dear Razor,
I am going to give you a handheld product worth buying.
1. Take PS Vita form factor
2. Add x86 guts to run Windows 7
3. Ad USB for Keyboard and Mouse for setup purposes.
4. Enough power to run PC games like sonic generations
5. Take my money for it
6. I install everything up to PS2 emulators
7. ????
8. Profit
Why anyone hasn't tapped this market is beyond me.
I am going to give you a handheld product worth buying.
1. Take PS Vita form factor
2. Add x86 guts to run Windows 7
3. Ad USB for Keyboard and Mouse for setup purposes.
4. Enough power to run PC games like sonic generations
5. Take my money for it
6. I install everything up to PS2 emulators
7. ????
8. Profit
Why anyone hasn't tapped this market is beyond me.
I didnt reccomend shit. If you need portable gaming buy a laptop. If you dont buy a desktop.
Dont put words in my mouth.
And no i am far from a cheapskate. I will pay for performance. If i wanted to pay for shiny fancy looks i would buy a mac. Its a machine, i want to get the most performance for my money.
If you want to buy a truck to pull a boat you buy a truck with power. You dont buy a wimpy truck because its prettier or has flip down DVD.
When talking about portable gaming the first thing you need to come to grips with is portable gaming is an oxymoron. You want to game on your portable device prepare to be tethered to electricity. That goes the same for this tablet and its reported 1 hour battery life during gaming on the base model. When you stop living in the fantasy that you will be gaming in your back yard or at the beach with it you realize its really all about getting said device from one tethered spot to your next tethered spot. Thats when weight becomes less and less of an issue.
Welcome to the PC gaming industry. Its all about getting the most performance for the money. All else is an afterthought. When you market a device to hardcore gamers with hardcore pricing and softcore specs there will be backlash. And the biggest mistake a company can make is trying to sell a gaming device that can barely game. This thing has a short lifespan right out of the gate due to its seriously weak graphics power. So yeah excuse me while i laugh at a $1750 price tag on something that gets shit stomped by anything graphically intensive made in the last 5 years.
Bah, why the hell do i bother...
If you need a portable laptop that can atleast do medium gaming and can turn into a tablet whenever you need to use an x86 apps on the go, get a hybrid laptop(laptop+tablet) with a dedicated GPU. If you don't, get a normal gaming laptop.
A laptop is not just about the performance.
Maybe for you.
But not everyone.
Just because you are, doesn't mean you have the right to criticize those who are not like you.
You have your priority, I have my priority, others have their priority.
Talk about battery. It also depends on the design and quality of the laptop.
A light and portable laptop doesn't necessary means lower battery compared to a huge and heavy laptop with the same CPU and GPU spec.
Here's another example of a good design laptop(which I doubt you are aware of) :
Fujitsu Lifebook SH792
13.3", Intel® Core i7-3520M, Max 16GB RAM, Max 256GB SSD, GT640M LE, 1.61kg,
Up to 9hrs (6cells Li-ion 72Wh)
With Modular Bay Options : one of it is an extra Bay Battery, 3-cell Li-ion 28Wh, up to 12hrs10mins1 battery life (Standard + Bay Batteries)
As for the razer edge, from what I read, there are a mix of info, but most saying 1-2 hours of dedicated GPU gaming, and up to 6 hours on general task.
The keyboard dock will double up the battery life.
So, you can almost get a 4 hours of gaming on a dock.
Not good enough?
The biggest mistake a company can make is trying to sell a gaming device that can barely game?
There are quite a number of gaming laptop with FullHD display, equipped with just GTX 660M.
A GTX 660M running games on 1080P resolutions will roughly get around the same FPS as a GT 640M LE running on 1366x768.
While those laptop also cost above $1k. What gives?
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
I think you're the only person who would want such a product.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
At least medium? Medium is the best case scenario in most games and there are plenty that can barely get by on low and some that simply wont play on that hardware.
Try the witcher 2 on the LE.
WTF are you serious? A 660m on 1080p will greatly outperform the 640M LE on 1366x768. Its nearly twice as fast as the LE. Your ignorance apparently knows no bounds man...
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,954
This is a "gaming" tablet, not a "runs Win8" tablet. The controller means you are limited to games which were designed with a controller, and considering the fucking thing is $250 the controller costs almost as much as a console which comes with a free controller.
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,954
Zarathustra[H];1039514536 said:
Goodluck playing Civ5 with the dualcore running at 1.4Ghz
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,469
Very serious. There are more variables than just pixel pushing power of GPU's, but they are a rather large part of it too.
1920x1080 has almost exactly two times the number of pixels as 1366x768 (1.98).
As such a GPU with twice the pixel pushing power will be approximately as fast at 1920x1080 as a half as fast GPU will be at 1366x768.
His comparison is very valid.
thedocta45
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,325
Well see that's the thing its both a "gaming" tablet and a "runs win8" tablet.
The majority of games out have been designed to work with a controller.
$ 250 is really expensive for a controller, do doubt about that.
I think its a really interesting albeit expensive product.
I'm just surprised that everyone is so quick to jump on the Razer bashing bandwagon.
At least medium? Medium is the best case scenario in most games and there are plenty that can barely get by on low and some that simply wont play on that hardware.
Try the witcher 2 on the LE.
Same goes.
Try Witcher 2 on the 660M on full 1080p settings then.
1,049,088 pixels for 1366x768
2,073,600 pixels for 1920x1080
That's twice the pixel.
But there are more to it than just pixels.
So, yeah, you need atleast double the performance.
Comprende?
Any more crap you might want to add?
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,469
Firstly, official specs are i5 w. hyperthreading at 1.7ghz base, turbo up to 2.6Ghz.
Civ5 minimum system requirements is a Core2 Duo at 1.8ghz.
Ivy Bridge has 55% higher IPC than Core2 Duo.
So, depending on what kind of turbo level it can hit, it will be between ~46% and ~124% faster than Civ 5's minimum specs core for core.
Seeing that it has HT, it will also have those two extra virtual cores to help boost performance.
In between round time will likely be a bit longer than on my 3930k@4.7Gh, but I'm sure it will be perfectly playable.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,469
...or maybe it mounts as a standard human interface device (keyboard) so you can bind controller keys to pretty much any game you'd like...
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Zarathustra[H];1039514727 said:
They wouldnt do something so stupid. They will go with the basic 360 layout because it just works in so many games. Going with the HID idea means setting up every key in every game. Its a royal PITA when MS already laid out the framework for 360 controllers.
That and they are trying to use this to push their failed 360 "pro gamer" controller as well so they want it all working the same.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Same goes.
Try Witcher 2 on the 660M on full 1080p settings then.
1,049,088 pixels for 1366x768
2,073,600 pixels for 1920x1080
That's twice the pixel.
But there are more to it than just pixels.
So, yeah, you need atleast double the performance.
Comprende?
Any more crap you might want to add?
OMFG... My point with the witcher is that even on lowest settings its unplayable on the shit chip. Playable just fine on medium with the 660.
You just pull shit straight out of your ass dont you? As though doubling the pixels automatically means you need double the performance... FYI increasing resolution is not near the performance hit you think especially when you are working with so much more memory bandwidth on the 660 thanks to its GDDR5 vs GDDR3.
So again, the 660 at 1080 will greatly outperform the 640M LE at 1366
Since you're the smart one here.
So, the 660M on 1080 will greatly outperform the 640M LE at 1366.
Define "greatly outperform"?
Since it's hard to get a benchmark results that run indentically.
Here are some of the benchmark results of the GTX650 desktop, that are quite affected on a higher resolution of which is a lil bit faster than the GTX660M.
The resolution is not as what we're discussing about(1366x768 vs 1920x1080), but this is the nearest I can find.
But then again you did said that "increasing resolution is not near the performance hit".
There are those compared between 2xAA and 4xAA, but you'll get the picture.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_650_EX_OC/1.html
Now, that I have shown you the comparison.
It's your turn to prove yourself that you didn't just pull shit straight out of your ass.
Here are some of the benchmark results of the GTX650 desktop, that are quite affected on a higher resolution of which is a lil bit faster than the GTX660M.
The resolution is not as what we're discussing about(1366x768 vs 1920x1080), but this is the nearest I can find.
But then again you did said that "increasing resolution is not near the performance hit".
There are those compared between 2xAA and 4xAA, but you'll get the picture.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_650_EX_OC/1.html
Now, that I have shown you the comparison.
It's your turn to prove yourself that you didn't just pull shit straight out of your ass.
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 13,444
You know what, none of this matters, because at $1750 after everything is said and done, it's way overpriced for what you get.
This tablet should be worth no more than $800 tops.
This tablet should be worth no more than $800 tops.
Yes, because comparing it to the pricing of other Android based or iOS based tablets is the way to go with this thing. It doesn't even compare to the $800 Intel Atom tablets. Yes somehow, it should be no more than $800.
$200 for 256 gig mSATA SSD. $350 for the i7-3517U proc. I'm sure by the time I'm done adding in the rest of the components, I'll hit $800 easy.
$200 for 256 gig mSATA SSD. $350 for the i7-3517U proc. I'm sure by the time I'm done adding in the rest of the components, I'll hit $800 easy.