The difference is not that bad when you look at using an external monitor. Only about 20% down. I guess a least a few percent of that would also be due to different CPUs. I guess it's good for those who don't want to build a complete gaming PC. If you later decide to build a complete PC you could sell the Razer Core X, but for drama and cost of a complete PC for those who don't already have other parts or have done it before is just too much. Especially if all you want to do on the second PC is game.

Just putting this for those who might make the mistake I first did:

Initially I thought the connection was Thunderbolt from Laptop to Razer Core, then HDMI from Laptop to external display, but below is the correct configuration.

Laptop-----------> Razer Core --------------> External display.

The connection from Laptop to Razer would be Thunderbolt 3, and the connection from the Razer would be any of the Graphics cards ports to the display(DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort etc)

Ah, I didn't know this until I read it in your article just now, I'll cut & paste it here:

"Based on our experience with docking stations like the Core V2, Aorus Gaming Box, and Alienware Graphics Dock, the benefits of eGPU are most efficient at the GTX 1050 or GTX 1060 level. Faster GPUs like the GTX 1070 or 1080 can work, but the performance drop compared to a "true" gaming PC equipped with the same graphics card becomes increasingly more severe due to limitations of Thunderbolt 3."

Yeah, so for me that seems like eGPU is not really worth it, because GTX 1060 performance is already easily fitting in thin & light small notebooks.  I suppose there's the argument that you can replace the GPU for the next generation, but then you'd still have the bottleneck of Thunderbolt & it would be an even bigger bottleneck with the next generation of cards, because they would be faster.  Doesn't seem like a good idea to me.