Das Gehäuse dicker zu machen war die beste Idee die Razer je hatte!

Das Blade 15 war jahrelang blödsinnig dünn, heiß und laut. Das Blade 16 ist immer noch sehr dünn und dürfte sehr gerne noch 3mm dicker werden, aber es ist eine Verbesserung.

47db bei 243W sind angesichts des immer noch sehr dünnen Gehäuses respektabel. Wahrscheinlich wird Razer das nicht machen, aber mit 3mm dickerem Gehäuse und einem dritten Lüfter wie beim Blade 17/18 ließe sich der Lärm locker in den niedrigen 40er-Bereich drücken und damit von störend zu akzeptablem Rauschen ohne Leistungsverlust. Bei dem Preis sollte man nicht die Leistung reduzieren müssen. Das etwas dickere Gehäuse würde evtl. ermöglichen, den Akku zugunsten des dritten Lüfters nur geringfügig verkleinern zu müssen (z.B. 90 statt 99Wh).

Nachteile hat das Blade (abgesehen vom unverschämten Preis) aber auch: Im Videotest hört man deutlich hochfrequente Störgeräusche in den Lüftertests. Das klingt sehr unangenehm und wäre für mich ein No Go.

Quote from: HansPino on February 21, 2024, 17:02:28Für mich ist unverständlich warum ein Notebook in dieser Preisklasse solch einen gravierenden Nachteil aufweist.

Its entire keyboard without the classic number pad is one big drawback.

Sonderzeichen der deutschen Tastatur nicht beleuchtet

Es scheinst so als ob die Sonderzeichen der Tatatur wie bei dem alten 2023 Model nicht beleuchtet sind.
Damit ist das Razer Balde 16 (2024) nicht für den alltäglichen Notebookeinsatz geeignet.
Für mich ist unverständlich warum ein Notebook in dieser Preisklasse solch einen gravierenden Nachteil aufweist.

Quote from: Antwort auf Niko on February 19, 2024, 23:07:52It reaches slightly over 615 in my case.

Even if your copy produces 614 nits, this does not solve anything - the True Black HDR 500 nameplate on this panel is fake, if the black level data is correct in the review, and therefore the contrast, even taking into account your 614 nits in "HDR" mode. The black level is more than 40 times higher than necessary even on your copy, unless proven otherwise.

Let me remind you that with HDR10 the brightness level is constant, and the black level for the True Black HDR label ALWAYS needs no more than 0.0005 nits.

Can you prove that the reviewer specified the wrong contrast? If not, the laptop manufacturer is deceiving customers.

For example, he provided the VESA consortium for certification with a real copy with 0.0005 nits of black level, but with wild flickering at 60-100 Hz and other problems, similar to the Dieselgate scandal, where the Volkswagen company deceived US federal authorities when certifying engines at the level emissions, replacing the firmware during the exam, and then installing a different one in production copies to match the torque and all other characteristics (after all, this cannot be achieved with lower emissions). And when this was discovered, she changed the firmware to the one that was shown in the tests, which immediately reduced the engine power and its torque, which is why she immediately received a barrage of lawsuits. It's about the same here, but everything is simpler, because... VESA is not a government agency and there can be a lot of scams there (as with the HDMI consortium, which allows fraudulent manufacturers to stick the HDMI 2.1 nameplate on 2.0b ports). But we don't even know if this is so and who is guilty in this case.

Again this is a charge to the manufacturer or VESA depending on the accuracy of the data in the NB survey. That is, ask all questions to the Notebookcheck editors. If they guarantee the accuracy of the measurements of the review authors, then the manufacturer is deceiving the buyer and this is already a reason for claims by those who have already purchased this laptop or for returning it during the warranty period or even after, with payment of compensation for deception.

Why VESA allowed this "True Black HDR 500" label to be stuck on this screen with a black level more than 40 times higher than the "True Black HDR 500" standard requires is another question, for the reasons described above. Here NotebookCheck needs to deal with both the manufacturer and VESA. It's not for me to do this.

They didn't measure it in HDR (I don't really get why they are not doing this...). It reaches slightly over 615 in my case.

Firstly, it is immediately clear that some of the data on the screen is fake, for example dE data before and after calibration.

Secondly, the PWM frequency of 960Hz is questionable. At this frequency, burnout accelerates.

Thirdly, and this is key, the screen panel 100% does not correspond to the "True Black HDR 500" sign, because it requires a maximum black level of 0.0005 nits (displayhdr.org/#tab-true-black-500) and, accordingly, a native contrast of at least 1M:1, taking into account the division of the screen brightness of a minimum of 500 nits by the maximum black level of 0.0005 nits. According to the review, the screen has 50 times worse contrast.
Congratulations to the buyers - they have already been deceived for a lot of money. They won't have real HDR10 support like top TVs, despite the AMOLED panel. At the same time, support for HDR10+ (Dynamic HDR) is also not announced at the hardware level. However, we still need to look for movies and games with HDR10+ support.

About the processor. At the beginning of the review there is fake data PL1=60W, but the author, as follows from the article, conducts a performance test in Cinebench R15 with real PL1=126-135W, otherwise the 14900HX on 10nm cores is simply not capable of such long-term sustainable performance. At 60W, only the 7945HX is capable of this level of performance. Because it is almost 2 times more energy efficient. Obviously, in new games, it will significantly lose to the 7945HX with a significant load on the cores, because... will be forced to drop to the specified 60W, while simultaneously consuming 4090 175W. After all, the case is shamefully light and the cooling system simply cannot cope with cooling 300W+. Even if it was a 3kg/18" device.

RAM, however, is optimized quite well.

For the mobile 4090 (which is about 1.5 times weaker than the desktop one), everything has been clear for a long time - it will not be able to handle the new 2024 releases 100% at stable 60fps in the native screen resolution, especially at ultra quality (as intended by the artist-designers in the studio)

All that remains is to use DLSS or look at the cloudy picture in fhd.

The noise is obviously increased, but what is surprising here with such a hot filling of Intel+NVidia cheaters + lightweight body?

QuoteHier bleibt beispielsweise das deutlich preiswertere Dell G16 deutlich ruhiger und verändert seine Ausgangslautstärke von 27 dB über den gesamten Testdurchlauf nicht.

For a simple reason, the cheaper Dell G16 does not consume as much and weighs 300g more....

It's no longer worth mentioning the poor, abbreviated, non-classic keyboard with a numpad for 16" and the not very good arrangement of ports.

As a result, the author draws the right conclusion - it's not worth buying.

Insgesamt genau das, was man erwarten konnte. Abgesehen vom Display und Wifi 7 alles beim alten.
Wenn die Preise nicht Razer-typisch völlig abgehoben wären, ein durchaus ansprechendes Gerät.
Sollte es entweder das alte mit MiniLED oder dieses hier mit OLED und 4080/90 deutlich unter 3000€ geben würde ich ernsthaft darüber nachdenken.

Schade, dass Razer beim Blade 14 bei dem fürchterlichen Display des Vorgängers bleibt, mit OLED wäre das ebenfalls interessant gewesen.

Was treibt einen Hersteller dazu ein 16" spiegelndes Display zu verbauen? Ein Notebook wird doch, zumindest kann es an unterschiedlichen Orten genutzt werden und nicht immer ist es möglich in einer reflexionsfreien Umgebung zu arbeiten und dann fummelt man häufig am Öffnungswinkel herum oder bewegt den Kopf um die Reflextionen zu reduzieren... so zumindest mein Leidensweg...