Verdict — High-End Performance For A More Digestible Price
The Blade 16 RTX 5080 retails for $3500 whereas the RTX 5090 configuration retails for $4500 for a 22 percent savings. The cheaper option entails a performane deficit of up to 13 percent for both the CPU and GPU meaning performance-per-dollar is roughly comparable between the two SKUs. Characteristics like battery life, power consumption, and noise levels are otherwise almost the same between the two SKUs despite their minor performance differences.
Whether or not the RTX 5080 option is more worth it than the RTX 5090 option is therefore down to user preference. Since most games are GPU bound, the slower CPU performance on the RTX 5080 SKU matters little when gaming which slightly favors the RTX 5080 option for gaming purposes. For gamers who are also content creators or video editors, however, such users may prefer the RTX 5090 option or even last year's Intel-powered option instead for their faster processors.
Pros
Cons
Price and Availability
Razer is now shipping the Blade 16 in multiple GPU configurations. The RTX 5080 option currently retails for $3500 as an exclusive at Razerstore.com.
The launch of the Blade 16 RTX 5080 SKU follows several weeks after the launch of the Blade 16 RTX 5090. This lower-end configuration also carries the slightly slower Ryzen Ryzen AI 9 365 instead of the Ryzen Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 while the 1600p240 Samsung OLED display remains the same.
More details on the chassis and physical features of the Blade 16 can be found on our original review here. This page instead focuses on how the RTX 5080 configuration performs against the RTX 5090 option.
More Razer reviews:
Specifications
SD Card Reader
SD Card Reader | |
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 |
Communication
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 |
Webcam

Display
|
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 394.4 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.82 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.85
ΔE Greyscale 1.1 | 0.09-98 Ø5.1
97.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.3% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.2
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 ATNA60DL04-0, OLED, 2560x1600, 16", 240 Hz | Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 ATNA60DL04-0, OLED, 2560x1600, 16", 240 Hz | Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 Samsung SDC41AB (ATNA60DL03-0), OLED, 2560x1600, 16", 240 Hz | Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF Samsung SDC4191 (ATNA60YV09-0, OLED, 3840x2400, 16", 60 Hz | MSI Vector A18 HX A9W AU Optronics B180QAN01.0, IPS, 2560x1600, 18", 240 Hz | Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 NE160QDM-NZC, IPS, 2560x1600, 16", 240 Hz | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | -5% | -1% | 0% | -4% | -3% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 99.3 | 96.1 -3% | 99.1 0% | 99.9 1% | 98.1 -1% | 99.1 0% |
sRGB Coverage | 100 | 99.9 0% | 99.9 0% | 100 0% | 99.9 0% | 99.9 0% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 97.8 | 85 -13% | 95.6 -2% | 96.4 -1% | 86.3 -12% | 89.1 -9% |
Response Times | 23% | 9% | -493% | -1654% | -1456% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 0.29 ? | 0.2 ? 31% | 0.24 ? 17% | 2 ? -590% | 4.3 ? -1383% | 4.6 ? -1486% |
Response Time Black / White * | 0.4 ? | 0.25 ? 37% | 0.4 ? -0% | 1.98 ? -395% | 8.1 ? -1925% | 6.1 ? -1425% |
PWM Frequency | 960 ? | 960 ? | 960 | 60 | ||
PWM Amplitude * | 44 | 44 -0% | ||||
Screen | -21% | -11% | -49% | -100% | -32% | |
Brightness middle | 394.4 | 391 -1% | 418 6% | 389.97 -1% | 543 38% | 545 38% |
Brightness | 401 | 393 -2% | 420 5% | 395 -1% | 502 25% | 536 34% |
Brightness Distribution | 97 | 98 1% | 98 1% | 97 0% | 86 -11% | 89 -8% |
Black Level * | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.56 | 0.41 | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.82 | 1.2 -46% | 1.07 -30% | 2 -144% | 3.41 -316% | 1.6 -95% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.82 | 3.2 -13% | 4.04 -43% | 4.1 -45% | 6.4 -127% | 4 -42% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.1 | 1.8 -64% | 1.12 -2% | 2.23 -103% | 3.4 -209% | 2.4 -118% |
Gamma | 2.2 100% | 2.2 100% | 2.29 96% | 2.41 91% | 2.3 96% | 2.25 98% |
CCT | 6424 101% | 6493 100% | 6417 101% | 6323 103% | 6070 107% | 6737 96% |
Contrast | 20900 | 12999 | 970 | 1329 | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.07 | 1.68 | 0.66 | 0.8 | ||
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -1% /
-6% | -1% /
-4% | -181% /
-116% | -586% /
-356% | -497% /
-283% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
0.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.2 ms rise | |
↘ 0.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 0 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.6 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
0.29 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.15 ms rise | |
↘ 0.14 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 0 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.2 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 960 Hz Amplitude: 44 % | ≤ 100 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 960 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 960 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8391 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Performance
Testing Conditions
We set Razer Synapse to Performance mode prior to running the benchmarks below.
Processor
The Ryzen AI 9 365 is roughly 13 percent slower than the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 configuration when it comes to multi-threaded applications. They are otherwise neck-to-neck in single-threaded loads.
Cinebench R15 Multi Loop
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 6.4: Multi-Core | Single-Core
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
Geekbench 6.4 / Multi-Core | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (12627 - 15010, n=6) | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Acer Nitro V 16 ANV16-41-R5AT | |
Maingear ML-16 MK2 |
Geekbench 6.4 / Single-Core | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (2778 - 2920, n=6) | |
Acer Nitro V 16 ANV16-41-R5AT | |
Maingear ML-16 MK2 |
* ... smaller is better
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx
Performance Rating | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / FP32 Ray-Trace | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (17096 - 32742, n=6) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / FPU Julia | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (61976 - 126955, n=6) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / CPU SHA3 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (2951 - 5178, n=6) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / CPU Queen | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (85333 - 93045, n=6) | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 |
AIDA64 / FPU SinJulia | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (11586 - 16342, n=6) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / FPU Mandel | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (33409 - 67374, n=6) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / CPU AES | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (47468 - 69801, n=6) |
AIDA64 / CPU ZLib | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (706 - 1343, n=6) |
AIDA64 / FP64 Ray-Trace | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (9061 - 17848, n=6) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / CPU PhotoWorxx | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (47654 - 52923, n=6) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W |
Stress Test
The CPU and GPU plateau at around 80 C each when gaming or running stressful loads on either Balanced or Performance modes. Note that GPU board power draw averages around 127 W when gaming on Performance mode versus 105 W when on Balanced mode which attributes to the slightly slower graphics performance between the two modes as mentioned in our GPU Performance section below.
CPU Clock (GHz) | GPU Clock (MHz) | Average CPU Temperature (°C) | Average GPU Temperature (°C) | |
System Idle | -- | -- | 43 | 44 |
Prime95 Stress | 3.2 | -- | 80 | 56 |
Prime95 + FurMark Stress | 2.6 | 1815 | 80 | 80 |
Cyberpunk 2077 Stress (Balanced mode) | 1.7 | 1950 | 79 | 77 |
Cyberpunk 2077 Stress (Performance mode) | 1.7 | 2227 | 81 | 79 |
PCMark 10: Score | Essentials | Productivity | Digital Content Creation
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
WebXPRT 3: Overall
WebXPRT 4: Overall
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Total
Performance Rating | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 -1! | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 -4! | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop -4! | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 -4! |
PCMark 10 / Score | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop (n=1) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
PCMark 10 / Essentials | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop (n=1) | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
PCMark 10 / Productivity | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop (n=1) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 |
PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop (n=1) | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
CrossMark / Overall | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
CrossMark / Productivity | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
CrossMark / Creativity | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
CrossMark / Responsiveness | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
WebXPRT 3 / Overall | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop (n=1) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 |
WebXPRT 4 / Overall | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop (n=1) | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 / Total | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop (n=1) | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W |
* ... smaller is better
PCMark 10 Score | 8587 points | |
Help |
AIDA64 / Memory Copy | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (87648 - 94710, n=6) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W |
AIDA64 / Memory Read | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (89012 - 103347, n=6) | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH |
AIDA64 / Memory Write | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (93627 - 106646, n=6) | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W |
AIDA64 / Memory Latency | |
Average AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (103.9 - 129.8, n=6) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 |
* ... smaller is better
DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W |
* ... smaller is better
Storage Devices
The Blade 16 may ship with either the Samsung PM9A1 or SSSTC CA6. They otherwise perform very similarly with no throttling behavior in our tests.
Drive Performance Rating - Percent | |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W |
* ... smaller is better
Disk Throttling: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8
GPU Performance
Dropping down from the RTX 5090 configuration to the RTX 5080 entails a graphics performance deficit of up to 13 percent according to 3DMark benchmarks to be comparable to last year's RTX 4090 model. Dropping down further to the RTX 5070 Ti is expected to entail another 12 percent dip.
Power Profile | Graphics Score | Physics Score | Combined Score |
Performance Mode | 51894 | 29781 | 12570 |
Balanced Mode | 48656 (-6%) | 29576 (-0%) | 12308 (-2%) |
Battery Power | 13799 (-73%) | 19722 (-33%) | 8255 (-34%) |
Running the system on Balanced mode instead of Performance mode will impact graphics performance by a relatively minor 6 percent.
3DMark 11 Performance | 41502 points | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 36436 points | |
3DMark Time Spy Score | 17598 points | |
Help |
* ... smaller is better
Gaming Performance
Performance in games is only slightly slower as predicted by the 3DMark results above. Users can expect a deficit of around 15 percent against the RTX 5090 configuration when playing titles like Monster Hunter Wilds or Alan Wake 2 while the deficit in other titles like Assassin's Creed Shadows can be narrower at under 10 percent.
Cyberpunk 2077 ultra FPS Chart
low | med. | high | ultra | QHD DLSS | QHD | 4K DLSS | 4K FSR | 4K | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 164.2 | 141.9 | 139.7 | 128.5 | 119 | ||||
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) | 152.3 | 131.3 | 76.7 | ||||||
X-Plane 11.11 (2018) | 118.9 | 104.3 | 84.2 | 69.6 | |||||
Strange Brigade (2018) | 314 | 261 | 150 | ||||||
Baldur's Gate 3 (2023) | 163.3 | 120.7 | 105.6 | 69.8 | |||||
Cyberpunk 2077 2.2 Phantom Liberty (2023) | 111.8 | 109.8 | 94 | 85.9 | 59.6 | 34.4 | 40.9 | ||
Alan Wake 2 (2023) | 99.1 | 67.2 | 57.8 | 35.4 | |||||
F1 24 (2024) | 110.3 | 77 | 65.9 | 38.8 | |||||
Black Myth: Wukong (2024) | 50 | 54 | 43 | 39 | 23 | ||||
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle (2024) | 110.7 | 101.2 | 85.1 | 53.8 | |||||
Monster Hunter Wilds (2025) | 65.7 | 64.9 | 58.9 | 50.9 | 38.6 | ||||
Assassin's Creed Shadows (2025) | 58 | 54 | 46 | 44 | 32 |
Emissions
System Noise
Noise Level
Idle |
| 23.1 / 23.1 / 29.2 dB(A) |
Load |
| 43 / 52.4 dB(A) |
![]() | ||
30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud |
||
min: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop, Ryzen AI 9 365, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR | Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop, Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, SSSTC CA6-8D2048 | Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-14900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB | Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, i9-13900H, Gigabyte AG470S1TB-SI B10 | MSI Vector A18 HX A9W GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Laptop, R9 9955HX | Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop, Ultra 9 275HX, Micron 2500 1TB MTFDKBA1T0QGN | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noise | -7% | 1% | -7% | -8% | -7% | |
off / environment * | 23 | 24.1 -5% | 23 -0% | 23 -0% | 22.5 2% | 24 -4% |
Idle Minimum * | 23.1 | 24.1 -4% | 23 -0% | 23 -0% | 26 -13% | 24 -4% |
Idle Average * | 23.1 | 30.6 -32% | 23 -0% | 23 -0% | 26 -13% | 30.1 -30% |
Idle Maximum * | 29.2 | 30.6 -5% | 27.66 5% | 33.64 -15% | 32 -10% | 30.1 -3% |
Load Average * | 43 | 45.5 -6% | 43.76 -2% | 51.49 -20% | 44.4 -3% | 41.1 4% |
Cyberpunk 2077 ultra * | 50.1 | 48.2 4% | 49.8 1% | 54.2 -8% | ||
Load Maximum * | 52.4 | 53.4 -2% | 50.37 4% | 55.24 -5% | 61.6 -18% | 54.2 -3% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 46.81 | 55.27 |
* ... smaller is better
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 50.6 °C / 123 F, compared to the average of 40.5 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 48.6 °C / 119 F, compared to the average of 43.3 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.6 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(±) 3: The average temperature for the upper side is 37.7 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F for the class Gaming.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 37.4 °C / 99.3 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-8.5 °C / -15.3 F).
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop | Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop | Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 Intel Core i9-14900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU | Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF Intel Core i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | MSI Vector A18 HX A9W AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Laptop | Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Heat | 8% | 14% | 24% | 12% | 18% | |
Maximum Upper Side * | 50.6 | 48.3 5% | 45 11% | 41 19% | 46.6 8% | 39.6 22% |
Maximum Bottom * | 48.6 | 53.3 -10% | 45 7% | 47 3% | 45.6 6% | 49.7 -2% |
Idle Upper Side * | 35.2 | 28.3 20% | 29 18% | 23 35% | 31.2 11% | 26.3 25% |
Idle Bottom * | 37 | 30.3 18% | 30 19% | 23 38% | 28.6 23% | 27.3 26% |
* ... smaller is better
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (13.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 21% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 14% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2021 M1 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | bass is linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (2.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (4.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 0% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Energy Management
Power Consumption
Idling on desktop can demand as little as 7 W on Power Saver iGPU mode on the minimum brightness setting versus 47 W if idling on Performance dGPU mode on the maximum brightness setting and displaying an all-white image. You'll therefore want to run on iGPU mode if battery life is a concern as runtimes are heavily influenced by the dGPU and OLED panel.
Power consumption when gaming is otherwise not significantly lower than the RTX 5090 configuration despite their performance differences.
Off / Standby | ![]() ![]() |
Idle | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Load |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Key:
min: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 Ryzen AI 9 365, GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR, OLED, 2560x1600, 16" | Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop, SSSTC CA6-8D2048, OLED, 2560x1600, 16" | Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 i9-14900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB, OLED, 2560x1600, 16" | Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, Gigabyte AG470S1TB-SI B10, OLED, 3840x2400, 16" | MSI Vector A18 HX A9W R9 9955HX, GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Laptop, , IPS, 2560x1600, 18" | Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 Ultra 9 275HX, GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop, Micron 2500 1TB MTFDKBA1T0QGN, IPS, 2560x1600, 16" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -4% | -47% | -11% | -121% | -38% | |
Idle Minimum * | 7 | 10.9 -56% | 16.9 -141% | 11.8 -69% | 20.8 -197% | 10.8 -54% |
Idle Average * | 15 | 13.5 10% | 17.8 -19% | 16.1 -7% | 52.8 -252% | 17.7 -18% |
Idle Maximum * | 15.4 | 13.7 11% | 19.6 -27% | 17 -10% | 54.5 -254% | 18.8 -22% |
Load Average * | 108.5 | 120.2 -11% | 128 -18% | 100.6 7% | 146.6 -35% | 139.4 -28% |
Cyberpunk 2077 ultra * | 195.2 | 178.2 9% | 285 -46% | 295 -51% | ||
Cyberpunk 2077 ultra external monitor * | 194.8 | 177.6 9% | 278 -43% | 291 -49% | ||
Load Maximum * | 254.1 | 246.1 3% | 328 -29% | 192 24% | 297.3 -17% | 359.3 -41% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 243 | 158 |
* ... smaller is better
Power Consumption Cyberpunk / Stress Test
Power Consumption external Monitor
Battery Life
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 Ryzen AI 9 365, GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop, 90 Wh | Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop, 90 Wh | Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 i9-14900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, 95.2 Wh | Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, 88 Wh | MSI Vector A18 HX A9W R9 9955HX, GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Laptop, 99 Wh | Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 Ultra 9 275HX, GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop, 90 Wh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 0% | -31% | -6% | -52% | -2% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 477 | 475 0% | 329 -31% | 448 -6% | 229 -52% | 469 -2% |
H.264 | 592 | 456 | 442 | 658 | ||
Cyberpunk 2077 ultra 150cd | 71 | 48 | ||||
Load | 79 | 126 | 88 | |||
Reader / Idle | 420 |
Notebookcheck Rating
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080
- 05/23/2025 v8
Allen Ngo
Potential Competitors in Comparison
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Height | Display |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Razer Blade 16 RTX 5080 AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 ⎘ Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 1024 GB SSD | Amazon: 1. $2,899.99 ASUS ROG Strix G16 (2025) Ga... 2. $3,099.00 Razer Blade 17 Gaming Laptop... 3. $3,749.00 Lenovo Legion Pro 7i Gen 10 ... List Price: 3500 USD | 2.1 kg | 17.4 mm | 16.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI OLED | |
Razer Blade 16 2025 RTX 5090 AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 ⎘ Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 2048 GB SSD | Amazon: 1. $6,384.45 Razer Blade 16 Gaming Laptop... 2. $6,698.00 Razer Blade 18 Gaming Laptop... 3. $5,495.00 Razer Blade 18 Gaming Laptop... List Price: 4399€ | 2.1 kg | 17.4 mm | 16.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI OLED | |
Razer Blade 16 2024, RTX 4090 Intel Core i9-14900HX ⎘ NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 2048 GB SSD | Amazon: $4,375.00 List Price: 4850 Euro | 2.5 kg | 22 mm | 16.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI OLED | |
Gigabyte Aero X16 1WH AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 ⎘ Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Laptop ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 1024 GB SSD | Amazon: 1. $20.98 Puccy 2 Pack Film Protector,... 2. $18.98 Puccy 2 Pack Back Protector ... 3. $39.98 Puccy Tempered Glass Screen ... List Price: 1799€ | 2 kg | 19.9 mm | 16.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI IPS | |
MSI Vector A18 HX A9W AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX ⎘ Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Laptop ⎘ 32 GB Memory | Amazon: $4,563.65 List Price: 3200 USD | 3.5 kg | 32.05 mm | 18.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI IPS | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G615 Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX ⎘ Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 1024 GB SSD | Amazon: 1. $1,399.99 ASUS ROG Strix G16 Gaming La... 2. $162.74 A-Tech 48GB RAM for ASUS ROG... 3. $2,899.99 ASUS ROG Strix G16 (2025) Ga... List Price: 3299€ | 2.6 kg | 30.8 mm | 16.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI IPS |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.