Compared: Razer Blade Stealth 13 versus Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    lkrupp said:
    So ,other than only running Windows, the Razer Blade Stealth is vastly superior to the MacBook Pro.
    Isn’t this the same forum that wrote off MacBooks when they were limited to 16GB of RAM? Where are those jeerers now it the Windows machine which is ‘hobbled’.
    kpomwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 39
    KITAKITA Posts: 382member
    mcdave said:
    lkrupp said:
    So ,other than only running Windows, the Razer Blade Stealth is vastly superior to the MacBook Pro.
    Isn’t this the same forum that wrote off MacBooks when they were limited to 16GB of RAM? Where are those jeerers now it the Windows machine which is ‘hobbled’.
    Depending on someone's workflow or requirements, they may need 32 GB of RAM. The dGPU in the Razor is a major addition though and allows it to do a lot more than the extra ram would.

    However, let's say you need to run multiple medium weight virtual machines and 16 GB of RAM isn't enough. Well, you're probably better off leaving that 4 core / 8 thread CPU behind as well and getting something like a new Ryzen 4000 laptop with the 15 W Ryzen 7 Pro 4750U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 7 iGPU) or the 15 W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8 iGPU) and 32 GB of RAM.

    The new June 2020 ThinkPads (X13, E14, L14, T14, T14s) might be a good choice as they can come equipped with up to a Ryzen 7 Pro 4750U. Although, we still have to see the configurations that Lenovo will allow (the new generation Ryzen chips can technically support up to 32 GB LPDDR4X-4266 or up to 64 GB DDR4-3200).
  • Reply 23 of 39
    Mike Wuerthele said: While I understand where you're coming from, legacy apps are called legacy for a reason, and aren't primary use cases.
    If you're talking about professional software that people typically use on a laptop, the vast majority qualifies as legacy. For example, Photoshop is a legacy app. The annual focus is primarily on added features, not overhauling the code for greater efficiency. Occasionally that will happen, but it's not something anyone banks on year to year. That's the reason brute force for hardware gets so much attention: people know the software lags way behind. In this comparison, there isn't really a big enough brute force difference to think legacy apps are going to be that different of an experience. 
    edited June 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,513administrator
    Mike Wuerthele said: While I understand where you're coming from, legacy apps are called legacy for a reason, and aren't primary use cases.
    If you're talking about professional software that people typically use on a laptop, the vast majority qualifies as legacy. For example, Photoshop is a legacy app. The annual focus is primarily on added features, not overhauling the code for greater efficiency. Occasionally that will happen, but it's not something anyone banks on year to year. That's the reason brute force for hardware gets so much attention: people know the software lags way behind. In this comparison, there isn't really a big enough brute force difference to think legacy apps are going to be that different of an experience. 
    What? I agree that Adobe isn't that interested in efficiency, but Photoshop absolutely benefits from more powerful hardware.

    Something that only utilizes a single core won't have seen much, if any, speed increase in the last six years, but Photoshop certainly doesn't qualify as that.
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 25 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,513administrator
     Do the larger Razer models compare even more favourably with the equivalent MacBook Pros in review... ?

    This piece started conceptually with larger models like the 16-inch MBP and 15- and 17-inch Razer units included, but it was apparent from the start that it would be too unwieldy for an omnibus piece. Look for a discussion next week about this.
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 26 of 39
    kbeekbee Posts: 24member
    What I really miss in this comparison is the build quality of both products.
    Apple always seems to fail when it comes to thermal management.

    They failed with the 2018 MBP Core i9 model (which I payed a ton of money for and got a piece of crap) that turned out to be slower compared to the Core i7 model.
    Apple failed again (recently. and just once again) with the 2020 MacBook Air equipped with a 10th generation intel compared to the 2020 13" MacBook Pro equipped with a 8th generation intel processor.
    https://youtu.be/fUsvpnHaQHI

    So why should the Razer and the compared Mac be on par? Apple is never known for a good thermal management in its notebooks. I'm almost sure that the Razer - as a gaming laptop - will do an excellent job compared to a Mac. 
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 27 of 39
    KITAKITA Posts: 382member
    Mike Wuerthele said: While I understand where you're coming from, legacy apps are called legacy for a reason, and aren't primary use cases.
    If you're talking about professional software that people typically use on a laptop, the vast majority qualifies as legacy. For example, Photoshop is a legacy app. The annual focus is primarily on added features, not overhauling the code for greater efficiency. Occasionally that will happen, but it's not something anyone banks on year to year. That's the reason brute force for hardware gets so much attention: people know the software lags way behind. In this comparison, there isn't really a big enough brute force difference to think legacy apps are going to be that different of an experience. 
    What? I agree that Adobe isn't that interested in efficiency, but Photoshop absolutely benefits from more powerful hardware.

    Something that only utilizes a single core won't have seen much, if any, speed increase in the last six years, but Photoshop certainly doesn't qualify as that.
    Not to pull this apart too much, I know what you're getting at, but Photoshop is just a bad example.



    Photoshop is an interesting application to look at since in most cases, it does not take advantage of CPUs that have a large number of cores. That means that the 28 cores in the Mac Pro are not being used to its full potential, but neither are the 18, 32, or 64 cores that are found in some of our PC configurations.

    Here, it is all about the per-core performance of the system which is determined largely by the maximum Turbo frequency as well as the processor's architecture. In the end, the result is that the $20k Mac Pro with 20 cores performs on par with the much less expensive 14-core iMac Pro. Many of the PC configurations are within a few percent of this result as well, although the Intel Core i9 9900K, AMD Threadripper 3960X/3970X, and AMD Ryzen 3900X/3950X CPUs are all around 10% faster than the Mac Pro.

    Further, GPU doesn't have as much of an impact here either.





    Since we are specifically looking at video cards in this post, we are going to mostly examine the "GPU Score (16 Bits/Channel)" result. If you scroll to the next chart to look at the "Overall Score", you will notice that there isn't much of a difference between each GPU when looking at Photoshop performance from an overall perspective. In fact, in that case even the NVIDIA Titan RTX is only ~5% faster than the integrated graphics on the Core i9 9900K. However, if we look at just the tasks that actually benefit from using a discrete GPU, we at least get enough of a separation between the different models to pull out some useful information.

    ...

    Photoshop is not exactly a GPU powerhouse. There isn't much reason to use a higher-end NVIDIA GPU, and even if we only look at the tasks that utilize the GPU, there is only about a 10% advantage at most for using NVIDIA over AMD. This isn't nothing, but it also isn't likely to be a deal breaker for many users.


    A better example would be Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, etc.



    gatorguykbeeavon b7roundaboutnow
  • Reply 28 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    KITA said:
    Mike Wuerthele said: While I understand where you're coming from, legacy apps are called legacy for a reason, and aren't primary use cases.
    If you're talking about professional software that people typically use on a laptop, the vast majority qualifies as legacy. For example, Photoshop is a legacy app. The annual focus is primarily on added features, not overhauling the code for greater efficiency. Occasionally that will happen, but it's not something anyone banks on year to year. That's the reason brute force for hardware gets so much attention: people know the software lags way behind. In this comparison, there isn't really a big enough brute force difference to think legacy apps are going to be that different of an experience. 
    What? I agree that Adobe isn't that interested in efficiency, but Photoshop absolutely benefits from more powerful hardware.

    Something that only utilizes a single core won't have seen much, if any, speed increase in the last six years, but Photoshop certainly doesn't qualify as that.
    Not to pull this apart too much, I know what you're getting at, but Photoshop is just a bad example.



    Photoshop is an interesting application to look at since in most cases, it does not take advantage of CPUs that have a large number of cores. That means that the 28 cores in the Mac Pro are not being used to its full potential, but neither are the 18, 32, or 64 cores that are found in some of our PC configurations.

    Here, it is all about the per-core performance of the system which is determined largely by the maximum Turbo frequency as well as the processor's architecture. In the end, the result is that the $20k Mac Pro with 20 cores performs on par with the much less expensive 14-core iMac Pro. Many of the PC configurations are within a few percent of this result as well, although the Intel Core i9 9900K, AMD Threadripper 3960X/3970X, and AMD Ryzen 3900X/3950X CPUs are all around 10% faster than the Mac Pro.

    Further, GPU doesn't have as much of an impact here either.





    Since we are specifically looking at video cards in this post, we are going to mostly examine the "GPU Score (16 Bits/Channel)" result. If you scroll to the next chart to look at the "Overall Score", you will notice that there isn't much of a difference between each GPU when looking at Photoshop performance from an overall perspective. In fact, in that case even the NVIDIA Titan RTX is only ~5% faster than the integrated graphics on the Core i9 9900K. However, if we look at just the tasks that actually benefit from using a discrete GPU, we at least get enough of a separation between the different models to pull out some useful information.

    ...

    Photoshop is not exactly a GPU powerhouse. There isn't much reason to use a higher-end NVIDIA GPU, and even if we only look at the tasks that utilize the GPU, there is only about a 10% advantage at most for using NVIDIA over AMD. This isn't nothing, but it also isn't likely to be a deal breaker for many users.


    I read thru their results a few months ago before replacing my at-home desktop used for photo-processing. Saved me from overspending on the GPU, and opting for the AMD Ryzen over Intel. Used the savings from both to add another 16gb memory and additional M.2 which IS advantageous.
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 29 of 39
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,911member

    Razer notebook quite attractive to power users.

    ... who don’t care about having to use Windows. 



    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 39
    kpomkpom Posts: 657member
    lkrupp said:
    So ,other than only running Windows, the Razer Blade Stealth is vastly superior to the MacBook Pro.
    Not really. It offers better graphics performance, but it otherwise fairly comparable.
    watto_cobracornchip
  • Reply 31 of 39
    kpomkpom Posts: 657member
    kbee said:
    What I really miss in this comparison is the build quality of both products.
    Apple always seems to fail when it comes to thermal management.

    They failed with the 2018 MBP Core i9 model (which I payed a ton of money for and got a piece of crap) that turned out to be slower compared to the Core i7 model.
    Apple failed again (recently. and just once again) with the 2020 MacBook Air equipped with a 10th generation intel compared to the 2020 13" MacBook Pro equipped with a 8th generation intel processor.
    https://youtu.be/fUsvpnHaQHI

    So why should the Razer and the compared Mac be on par? Apple is never known for a good thermal management in its notebooks. I'm almost sure that the Razer - as a gaming laptop - will do an excellent job compared to a Mac. 
    No, Apple didn’t “fail” with the MacBook Air. Intel’s marketing is just misleading. The Air has 10W chips that max out at 12W. They aren’t intended to run at high speeds for extended periods of time, advertised Turbo Boost speeds notwithstanding. Put that chip into a MacBook Pro case, and it won’t run much faster than it does in the Air. The Y-series isn’t intended to run at high speeds for extended periods of time. For average usage and tasks (such as opening apps and web pages), the Air will be just fine and sometimes outperform the 8th-gen MacBook Pro. But it isn’t a design flaw that the 8th gen MacBook Pro runs CPU-intensive software faster than the Air with a 10th-gen chip. 
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 39
    Mike Wuerthele said: What? I agree that Adobe isn't that interested in efficiency, but Photoshop absolutely benefits from more powerful hardware.
    Never said it didn't. I said that gaming software was the most likely place you would see a noticeable performance difference in these two laptops, which is ironically also the most likely place you would see a noticeable performance difference between an Apple smartphone and a competitors smartphone. Gaming software is expected to prioritize efficiency and performance gains year to year. The vast majority of professional software prioritizes added features. That dynamic is just as true for mobile as it is for desktop. That's why I think it's funny that desktop/laptop benchmarks get much more emphasis in terms of importance for general use than those for smartphones. The dynamic between hardware/software isn't really that different.
  • Reply 33 of 39
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Razer is garbage. It only became popular because they paid a bunch of celebrities and artists to use their crap. Like how Samsung paid 14 Billion on ads to get attention.

    I'm disappointed AppleInsider even covered that company.

    Just for laughs:
    An iKnockoff user called Razer's CEO "the next Steve Jobs" because he said "One Other Thing" or something similar.....
  • Reply 34 of 39
    KITAKITA Posts: 382member
    Beats said:
    Razer is garbage. It only became popular because they paid a bunch of celebrities and artists to use their crap. Like how Samsung paid 14 Billion on ads to get attention.

    I'm disappointed AppleInsider even covered that company.

    Just for laughs:
    An iKnockoff user called Razer's CEO "the next Steve Jobs" because he said "One Other Thing" or something similar.....
    Do you have any proof that Razer is garbage? The article, along with its supplied facts and reasoning, suggests the opposite of your claim.
    elijahg
  • Reply 35 of 39
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,384member
    macxpress said:
    Remember too Razer is a gaming laptop and the MacBook Pro obviously isn't. Kinda comparing apples to oranges IMO. 2 different laptops for 2 different purposes. No business or true professional is going to buy a Razer laptop to do their work on.
    Incorrect. 

    I’m an all apple CTO in a mixed use organization. 

    One of our finance managers needs to be mobile. 

    But she can’t use Mac OS as their is a learning curve that she doesn’t have time for that. 

    So we researched a number of windows laptops and eventually spec’d a 15” razor blade. 

    For professional use. 

    And it’s absolutely a work machine. 

    It’s just a bonus thst it can do gaming. 

    The sole downside is a hideous logo that had to be coveted up with a cover. 

    But as far as windows notebooks go, it’s a fantastic machine. 
  • Reply 36 of 39
    digitoldigitol Posts: 269member
    Ouch. This is a mac site, and it appears Razer won. It’s thinner, lighter, Faster, better options. Same price. The only difference is one runs mac os and the other windoze. I’ll stick with my mac, thanks. Quite sad that the only edge Apple has is operating system. To be continued, end of 2020 Apple silicon, coming soon to a mac near you. 
    cornchip
  • Reply 37 of 39
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,377member
    digitol said:
    Ouch. This is a mac site, and it appears Razer won. It’s thinner, lighter, Faster, better options. Same price. The only difference is one runs mac os and the other windoze. I’ll stick with my mac, thanks. Quite sad that the only edge Apple has is operating system. To be continued, end of 2020 Apple silicon, coming soon to a mac near you. 
    Apple’s support channel is also a big differentiator. Being able to carry your Mac into an Apple Store and sit down with someone who understands the machine inside and out matters immensely to me. In fact, in one company I worked for with >2000 local employees, Mac users had all of their hardware needs serviced at the Apple Store. Service for PC users was initially done by a dedicated staff of technicians who were on the payroll until they were replaced by on-site contractors. The TCO for Macs was considerably less than it was for Windows machines. 

    I’m not discounting non Apple machines, I’m just saying that buying an Apple product is about more than just the “hot specs of the month” comparisons. Building a machine to attract a certain set of buyers is one thing. Building a range of machines that attract a broad base of buyers, and having the people and infrastructure in place to keep that broad base of customers happy, is a much greater challenge. Apple is not alone, other companies like Dell, HP, and Lenovo do a pretty good job as well, but Apple is still the best and it’s not simply because of macOS. 
  • Reply 38 of 39
    A very nice one except for the possible fiddle with Hackintosh (no Mac user would trade macOS for better hardware)
  • Reply 39 of 39
    KITA said:
    Beats said:
    Razer is garbage. It only became popular because they paid a bunch of celebrities and artists to use their crap. Like how Samsung paid 14 Billion on ads to get attention.

    I'm disappointed AppleInsider even covered that company.

    Just for laughs:
    An iKnockoff user called Razer's CEO "the next Steve Jobs" because he said "One Other Thing" or something similar.....
    Do you have any proof that Razer is garbage? The article, along with its supplied facts and reasoning, suggests the opposite of your claim.
    At least Razer accessories - which also happen to be their main trade - are about the most poorly-made ‘premium’ gaming kit I’ve seen. Tons of blows and whistles, but vastly inferior to much cheaper Logitech in terms of build quality.
    edited July 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.