Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarLatest Razer Blade Stealth with 11th gen Core i7 is only $100 more than the 10th gen version. Why the small price difference?
Late last year, Razer launched two distinct 10th gen Ice Lake Blade Stealth options: one with the 25 W Core i7-1065G7 CPU and no GeForce graphics and one with the 15 W Core i7-1065G7 CPU plus GeForce graphics. In other words, choosing the configuration with faster graphics would mean sacrificing CPU performance. Razer remedied this in early 2020 with a third Ice Lake option that rightfully combined the 25 W Core i7 with GeForce graphics.
At RazerCon 2020, the company unveiled an 11th gen Tiger Lake Blade Stealth to succeed the three Ice Lake options before it. This time, however, there are thankfully no 15 W processor options as all current Tiger Lake Blade Stealth SKUs are 25 W instead. When compared to the 15 W and 25 W Ice Lake Core i7 options, the Tiger Lake Core i7-1165G7 can offer about 20 to 25 percent and 70 percent faster multi-thread performance, respectively, as shown by our CineBench R15 xT loop results below. System RAM is also slightly faster as well (2133.3 MHz vs. 1866.7 MHz) and Thunderbolt 4 comes standard.
The big catch is that the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q GPU remains identical between the latest Ice Lake and Tiger Lake Blade Stealth options and so gaming performance is only about 5 percent faster on the Tiger Lake SKU on average despite the greater 20 to 25 percent increase in CPU performance.
Razer is well aware of the minor increase in gaming performance between the 25 W Ice Lake Blade Stealth and newer Tiger Lake Blade Stealth as shown by the minor price difference between the two SKUs. As of this writing, the 25 W Ice Lake SKU with GeForce graphics retails for $1700 USD while the Tiger Lake SKU retails for $1800 USD with the exact same 120 Hz display, 16 GB RAM capacity, and 512 GB NVMe SSD.
If you're in the market for a new Blade Stealth, you can go with the 25 W Ice Lake GeForce version without FOMO since gaming performance is almost identical to the newer Tiger Lake version. Buyers would just need to be careful to avoid both the 15 W Ice Lake model and the 25 W Ice Lake model without the GeForce GPU. On the other hand, the $100 surcharge for the slightly better Tiger Lake version is a relatively small price to pay.
| Razer Blade Stealth i7-1165G7 GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q i7-1165G7, GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981a MZVLB512HBJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.30 | Razer Blade Stealth Core i7 GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 4K i7-1065G7, GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, Lite-On CA5-8D512, IPS, 3840x2160, 13.30 | Razer Blade Stealth i7-1065G7 Iris Plus i7-1065G7, Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU), Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.30 | Razer Blade Stealth 13, Core i7-1065G7 i7-1065G7, GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, Lite-On CA3-8D512, IPS LED, 3840x2160, 13.30 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | ||||
| Idle Minimum * | 4 | 6 | 5.9 | 10.7 |
| Idle Average * | 6.3 | 10.9 | 8.1 | 13.6 |
| Idle Maximum * | 14.5 | 15.5 | 11.2 | 15.7 |
| Load Average * | 79.2 | 71.9 | 44.3 | 60 |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 68.2 | 72.9 | 41.9 | 64 |
| Load Maximum * | 99.4 | 100.5 | 50.2 | 71 |
* ... smaller is better
| Razer Blade Stealth i7-1165G7 GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q i7-1165G7, GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, 53.1 Wh | Razer Blade Stealth Core i7 GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 4K i7-1065G7, GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, 53.1 Wh | Razer Blade Stealth i7-1065G7 Iris Plus i7-1065G7, Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU), 53.1 Wh | Razer Blade Stealth 13, Core i7-1065G7 i7-1065G7, GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 53.1 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | ||||
| Reader / Idle | 1235 | 467 | 500 | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 541 | 390 | 583 | 329 |
| Load | 100 | 114 |
| Razer Blade Stealth i7-1165G7 GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q Sharp LQ133M1JW46, IPS, 13.30, 1920x1080 | Razer Blade Stealth Core i7 GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 4K AUO272B, IPS, 13.30, 3840x2160 | Razer Blade Stealth i7-1065G7 Iris Plus Sharp LQ133M1JW41, IPS, 13.30, 1920x1080 | Razer Blade Stealth 13, Core i7-1065G7 AUO202B, IPS LED, 13.30, 3840x2160 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | ||||
| Display P3 Coverage | 66 | 63.7 | 66.2 | 64.3 |
| sRGB Coverage | 97.4 | 93.7 | 97.2 | 95.8 |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 67.1 | 64.5 | 67.1 | 65.7 |
| Response Times | ||||
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 57.6 ? | 57.6 ? | 45.2 ? | 62 ? |
| Response Time Black / White * | 37.6 ? | 37.2 ? | 33.2 ? | 39 ? |
| PWM Frequency | 22730 ? | |||
| Screen | ||||
| Brightness middle | 356.8 | 467 | 422.6 | 353 |
| Brightness | 336 | 448 | 404 | 335 |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 92 | 87 | 90 |
| Black Level * | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.25 |
| Contrast | 1049 | 1197 | 1207 | 1412 |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.63 | 2.1 | 1.02 | 4.4 |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.03 | 5.1 | 3.06 | 7.21 |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.08 | 2.04 | 0.95 | 1.1 |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3 | 1.3 | 1 | 5.49 |
| Gamma | 2.23 99% | 2.26 97% | 2.21 100% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 6434 101% | 6501 100% | 6502 100% | 7689 85% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62 | 59.5 | 62.1 | 61 |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 97.6 | 93.4 | 97.1 | 96 |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) |
* ... smaller is better
