[Bud]

And the Razer will be heavier, have half the battery life, inferior fit and finish, plus you're cherry-picking MB Pro configs to intentionally leave out the i7 and higher-end graphics options. Also, 3840x2160 screen on a laptop is stupid; you're paying extra and paying a large performance penalty to get 4k on a screen on which you can't even really appreciate and use the higher res.

[barake]

You're right, that resolution is a waste of money on 12.5" screen. Can be had with a QHD (2560 x 1440) display for $200 less.

And just because I was curious: MacBook Pro 13" 1370g MacBook Pro 15" 1830g Razer Blade Stealth 1290g Dell XPS 13 1330g

[pault]

To be fair, I plan on getting the base $999 model and putting a geforce 1080 in the breakout box supporting a 5k monitor, or 5 1400p monitors in portrait mode. I don't really leave the desktop often unless I'm using the laptop in bed.

[swozey]

I'm pretty sure that I read a 1060 or 1070 saturates the Razer Cores bandwidth, I may be wrong but bear that in mind. I think, specifically, I read a review where only 80-85% of the 1070 was able to be used fully, so I doubt throwing a 1080 into the mix will be a net gain. Just mentioning it so you make sure to research it before you spend the cash.

[pault]

You are correct. That is incredibly disappointing.

[skeptic2718]

>plus you're cherry-picking MB Pro configs to intentionally leave out the i7 and higher-end graphics options

Wrong. Cherry picking to match the price ($1999).

[Bud]

Not to mention the fact that the Razer line is such a hilarious joke when it comes to battery life that their new "Pro" laptop doesn't even have battery life LISTED on its specs page. Which probably means it's on par with recent Razer offerings: 3 hours or less.

This is just a joke for anything except desk-bound use, in which case you may as well buy a real desktop computer.

And it weighs 8 pounds.

[skeptic2718]

Stop trolling, please. It's a 53.6Wh battery.