So let me get this straight...It's an ultra ultrabook with no battery power and no gpu, but I'm supposed to GAME ON, with this? I need a bigger battery and a REAL GPU...Or your device is useless for gaming. Intel chips have no gaming chops, sorry, it's true. Maybe at 10nm they can get an intel gpu to push a 1920x1200 screen with all the details on (which even 780gtx has a few issues with still (mini titan). We are a LONG way from pushing 4K which is just around the block, with all details on. NV/AMD have many more revs of cards to make for that to happen on a single chip solution and even then they'll be pushing 250w no doubt to do it as usual. Hardocp's tests show 1920x1080 still had details lowered for ALL cards if memory serves depending on the game. I think even Titan had only 2x ssaa etc and couldn't max everything in every game. So before mainstream gets GREAT 4k for $300 I'm guessing we'll be on 10nm or below. The 20nm chips will probably barely make 2560x1440 a great experience (and probably only at $650+, might even just say only $1000), which means 14nm will POSSIBLY be decent at 4K but again at $650+. So this is what leads me to say 4K at $300 or so is 10nm (note I'm talking single chip, of course SLI/CF will get many there but at for me far too much heat/watts etc, CF problems etc).
I want Single chip 4K and my PC to stream it to whatever device (shield?) is in my hand or to TV easily (again a shield like device fits here, or any phone/tablet that can sit up by the TV getting streams and working with my xbox360 gamepad etc). We have no need for consoles today, just make more gamepad games for PC and kill these dumb things off. Build miracast into every TV, phone, tablet etc. Intel's version of miracast (widi) forces up the price and IS NOT OPEN so everyone pays them fees. All companies need to adopt miracast and make sure all 4K TV's play fine at 2560x1440 so I have a choice just in case my gpu in my PC can't push 4K yet. This would essentially allow many to enjoy higher def gaming than consoles (which will only be 1080p for 8yrs) and upgrade the gpu for 4k when they can afford it. Easing us into 4K so to speak.
I see no point in this device they're about to push. To get to TV with Intel involved will shove up the price. Ultrabooks are already SUPER ULTRA priced and don't sell. It's a niche market at best. I'd rather have a HP or Dell loaded with a top end GPU, dual HD's (one of them SSD boot-which I'd buy separately and install into 2nd bay) etc for $1000-1100. Gamers don't need to be roadwarriors, strapped with roadwarrior limitations. I wonder how much Intel paid to have Razer say their hardware was GAME-ABLE.
I have nothing good to say about this. As someone who has only recently escaped the grips of low end gaming hardware, I have no intentions of having this filth rammed down my throat. Razer, I will not be buying expensive laptops and I will most certainly NOT buy a "gaming" laptop.
"Thinner Than a Dime" could mean that it's thinner than the diameter of a dime, seeing as the dime is rolling and not laying flat until the very end. The Razer Blade at 0.88" thick was touted as thinner than a MacBook Pro when it launched, which was impressive for a laptop with a dedicated GPU (regardless of how anemic it was). The MacBook Pro Retina 15" came out and is 0.71" thick, making it thinner than the Blade. A US dime has a diameter of 0.705", meaning if the new Blade is "thinner" than the diameter of a dime it would also be thinner than the MacBook Pro Retina.
This is going to be a new Haswell/GTX 7X0M Razer Blade that is less than 0.705" thick.