Razer Edge Pro Gaming Tablet

[krotch]

Except as has been pointed out over a dozen times, you have to use the keyboard attachment that basically turns it into a laptop to play games other then touch screen based ones. Then there is the weight factor, it is 2lbs by itself, have fun holding that up for an hour. So why should someone spend $1k+ to play touch screen games on a tablet when you can spend $300 for a different tablet?

Cause $300 tablets suck. I've owned an Android and the damn thing is so limited. Not to mention the sheer hours upon hours of reencoding videos for it to work with the damn thing. "1080p capable" my ass. I have to encode everything to be 7k or lower bitrate, just so it runs smoothly and even then, it doesn't properly sync the audio/video when connected to bluetooth speakers.

Me personally, I picked up an Acer W700 for $1100. Does everything my old $500 Acer A500 (costs $350 nowadays) and does a much better job. It also does everything my old HP TM2T laptop/tablet does and does it faster. I play touchscreen games on it and I also have an Xbox 360 controller that I can use with it for other games. Although, it's only packing the HD4000 graphics, so old games are all I can play. Not that I bought it to game with.

 

[Amal77]

You know what, none of this matters, because at $1750 after everything is said and done, it's way overpriced for what you get.
This tablet should be worth no more than $800 tops.

Yeah right.
No more praising of your recommended 17" laptop with a GTX 670 after made a fool of yourself?

Though I may agree that the controller is a bit expensive, but that doesn't mean it's a MUST HAVE for it to even work.
At least Razer give people choices to get one rather than to include it as a whole package.
The keyboard dock seems to be pricing normal though.
999.99 + 199.99, seems like a good deal for an x86 tablet that can be turned into a laptop that can do medium gaming(depending on games).

$800 tops?
Where do you derive the value from?

 

[Red Falcon]

Yeah right.
No more praising of your recommended 17" laptop with a GTX 670 after made a fool of yourself?

That 670M 3GB would mop the floor with your 640M, hands down.
While I can appreciate the design of this, $250 for the controller alone is ludacris.

I can buy a whole console for that price, not counting the tablet, keyboard, and all of the extras needed to make the Razer Edge Pro complete.
The whole point of a tablet is so one can be very mobile, have great battery life, and do simple computing.

Tablets, including this one, were not designed for gaming, at least for not more than an hour, tops.
Even the ASUS laptop I mentioned will last more than one hour for gaming, albeit not by much, but it will be far more capable with a full keyboard, large screen, a decent GPU (won't run max settings, but that's what desktops are for), and has more storage/memory and a faster processor.

How did I make myself look like a fool?
By offering up a great alternative that actually could actually warrant gaming on the go with a more powerful GPU?

If one really needs to game on the go, get a 3DS, Vita, or PSP, and be done with it.
This tablet fills a very tiny niche market, and while it may have a use in the future, the tech just isn't there yet; maybe in another 10 years.

 

[Red Falcon]

640M LE Specs:
http://www./hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gt-640m-le/specifications

670M Specs:
http://www./hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-670m/specifications


I can tell you which one I would rather have for gaming on the go, especialy for lan parties and solo gaming.
No, the 670M is not going to run games at max settings at 1080p (and I never said it could), but at least the games will be playable and enjoyable at said resolution.

The 640M LE, even OCed, would barely be able to push modern games at minimal settings at lower resolutions, and with only 28GB/s of memory bandwidth, AA beyond 2x is out of the question.
The texture fill rate on the 640M LE isn't even half of what it is on the 670M, so higher settings are also out of the question.

Like I said, it's a good concept, but the tech isn't there yet for a tablet.

 

[Tekara]

I own a ASUS Zenbook with the same i7 processor and a weaker video card than this tablet (620m). Considering that I am able to play games like Borderlands 2 and Guildwars 2 at 30-40fps at native resolution, which is 1920x1080, on medium to low settings; I see no issues with the tablet being able to acceptably play these games at 1366x768.

I'm not sold on the control scheme it's using, but It'd be enjoyable enough for slow paced games.

 

[Red Falcon]

Yeah right.
At least Razer give people choices to get one rather than to include it as a whole package.

You know, if Razer did this, they would never sell any, because $1700+ for a tablet that can barely "game" at medium settings is completely not worth it.
$1700 would purchase a very nice desktop and an awesome gaming/workstation laptop that would be fully capable of running games at high resolutions, high frame rates, and high settings.

999.99 + 199.99, seems like a good deal for an x86 tablet that can be turned into a laptop that can do medium gaming(depending on games).

Even at $1200, it's pushing the envelope of bullshit that people will accept.
It fails as a tablet due to the high price.
It fails as a gaming system due to the low-end GPU.

That leaves it in a tiny niche market where only a select few are going to actually go along with this product.
Because anyone else with a brain who wants gaming on the go will either go for a laptop or a hand-held console for a fraction of the price.

Like I said, good concept, but the tech isn't there yet.
Give this ten years and I might end up agreeing with you.

 

[Amal77]

That 670M 3GB would mop the floor with your 640M, hands down.
While I can appreciate the design of this, $250 for the controller alone is ludacris.

I can buy a whole console for that price, not counting the tablet, keyboard, and all of the extras needed to make the Razer Edge Pro complete.
The whole point of a tablet is so one can be very mobile, have great battery life, and do simple computing.

Tablets, including this one, were not designed for gaming, at least for not more than an hour, tops.
Even the ASUS laptop I mentioned will last more than one hour for gaming, albeit not by much, but it will be far more capable with a full keyboard, large screen, a decent GPU (won't run max settings, but that's what desktops are for), and has more storage/memory and a faster processor.

How did I make myself look like a fool?
By offering up a great alternative that actually could actually warrant gaming on the go with a more powerful GPU?

If one really needs to game on the go, get a 3DS, Vita, or PSP, and be done with it.
This tablet fills a very tiny niche market, and while it may have a use in the future, the tech just isn't there yet; maybe in another 10 years.

GTX 670M 1.5GB and 3GB aren't that much of a difference in performance.
Yes, no doubt the GTX 670M will eat the 640M LE alive if compared identically.
But once you run the GTX 670M on 1080p compared to the 640M LE on 1366x768, the FPS gaps becomes alot more closer than comparing it on the same resolution.
The GTX 670M will still beat the 640M LE, but the differences won't be that much anymore. From like 90-120% to like 10-20%.
Translated to : 30fps on the LE, but 33fps-36fps on the 670M.

It wasn't really my intention to say that the GTX 670M sucks.
It was the top of the line mobile graphics before(rebranded from GTX 580M).
But since everyone here is bashing(including you) the 640M LE, telling that it can barely do gaming on a 1366x768 resolution, without realizing that it actually perform not so much of a difference from those fullHD gaming laptop with a GTX660M.
My intention is to tell you guys that the 640M LE is quite good enough for mid gaming on a 1366x768 resolution, just like you do gaming on a GTX 660M on 1080p.
GTX 670M is obviously better than the GTX 660M by a bit more.

As for the battery part.
I have already explained to someone else.
It has been told that it can do gaming around 1 to 2 hours on dedicated GPU, and up to 6 hours for general task.
With the keyboard dock, it'll double up the battery life.

10 years is too long.
Give it 1-2 years to get matured.

 

[Red Falcon]

10 years is too long.
Give it 1-2 years to get matured.

No, it has to be 10 years, because I said so.

As for the 640M LE, at 1-2 hours of battery life, that is actually pretty good for a dedicated GPU.
Maybe I have been too hard on this device, it's just that the price tag does seem a bit up there, but then again, maybe I'm just a cheapskate that way.

I'm not exactly sold on this model, but as I said, the concept is good.

 

[Amal77]

640M LE Specs:
http://www./hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gt-640m-le/specifications

670M Specs:
http://www./hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-670m/specifications


I can tell you which one I would rather have for gaming on the go, especialy for lan parties and solo gaming.
No, the 670M is not going to run games at max settings at 1080p (and I never said it could), but at least the games will be playable and enjoyable at said resolution.

The 640M LE, even OCed, would barely be able to push modern games at minimal settings at lower resolutions, and with only 28GB/s of memory bandwidth, AA beyond 2x is out of the question.
The texture fill rate on the 640M LE isn't even half of what it is on the 670M, so higher settings are also out of the question.

Like I said, it's a good concept, but the tech isn't there yet for a tablet.

Well, there's no wrong in that if you prefer the 17" gaming laptop on the go.
In the end it depends on what type of users you are, which is the type who prefer to have a bigger laptop with enjoyable gaming experience(though not at max settings on everything).

Though 640M LE on OCed will still not beat the GTX 670M, but is not something to be laugh about.
Bare in mind, the 640M LE can be OCed to a 100% increased on the core clock(from 500MHz to 1000MHz), and the Memory can be OCed around 20%(900MHz to 1100MHz), without instability issue on my laptop.
My synthetic benchmark of 3DMark11 gone up from 12xx to 23xx on the graphics score(GT 650M DDR3/GDDR5 scores around 21xx to 22xx on average).
Whereas a GTX670M gets about average of 27xx graphics score.
But yeah, it's just a benchmark tools.
Gaming wise, FPS increased from 40 to 70% from stock.

 

[Red Falcon]

^ That's actually a pretty decent boost in peformance.
I'm actually a bit surprised that that tablet can OC that far.

I will admit that I haven't seen another tablet yet that can to OCing to that extent, nice job.

 

[Amal77]

^ That's actually a pretty decent boost in peformance.
I'm actually a bit surprised that that tablet can OC that far.

I will admit that I haven't seen another tablet yet that can to OCing to that extent, nice job.

Sorry, what I meant was the 640M LE on my laptop.
Basically a 640M LE can easily be OCed if the BIOS allows it.

It would be awesome if one can OC this tablet to that kind of performance.

 

[Red Falcon]

Sorry, what I meant was the 640M LE on my laptop.
Basically a 640M LE can easily be OCed if the BIOS allows it.

It would be awesome if one can OC this tablet to that kind of performance.

That's still not too shabby though, considering what it is.
Low end graphics have come a long ways since the 8500GT days, where low-end literally meant that you could basically do zip on it.

After looking at some graphics, the 640M LE really isn't that bad.
It may not be able to do 1080p gaming, but I suppose it does fill that niche category where people want a tablet and also want to occationally game on the same device without carrying around two or more devices to do so.

After buying a tablet and a Vita, the cost would have been the equivalent to the Razer Edge Pro, so I guess the jokes on me!

 

[Amal77]

That's still not too shabby though, considering what it is.
Low end graphics have come a long ways since the 8500GT days, where low-end literally meant that you could basically do zip on it.

After looking at some graphics, the 640M LE really isn't that bad.
It may not be able to do 1080p gaming, but I suppose it does fill that niche category where people want a tablet and also want to occationally game on the same device without carrying around two or more devices to do so.

After buying a tablet and a Vita, the cost would have been the equivalent to the Razer Edge Pro, so I guess the jokes on me!

Yup, it's all up to the users priority and acceptance eventually.

Not saying that the current Razer Edge is not an interesting product, coz it is an interesting product no doubt. It is what the future will be, a powerful tablet that holds everything.

I'm actually much more interested to see what the next model(Razer Edge 2) will be in the future.
Or maybe hoping that other makers will follow the same path(dedicated GPU in a tablet), so that we will eventually have more models to choose from, cheaper, and more high quality & great graphics x86 touchbased apps & games to play on the tablet.

 

[krotch]

Even at $1200, it's pushing the envelope of bullshit that people will accept.
It fails as a tablet due to the high price.
It fails as a gaming system due to the low-end GPU.

It's funny that at $1200, people are buying the Acer W700 like hotcakes and it's not as capable as the Razer Edge Pro. Granted, it has better battery life, but it was designed to be just a high end tablet, not a gaming machine.

I had to wait a couple months to get my W700, as it just kept selling out. I picked it up at Newegg and it sold out quick.

Companies are having a hard time making these things, as the parts just aren't coming out fast enough to be built to keep up with demand. Which gets me, cause I don't see anyone walking around with these things.

Now, I personally can't see this tablet going very far. The poor battery life while gaming is something that we all know would happen. I mean, how many have even seen a gaming laptop with good battery life while gaming? I think it's the battery life while just doing normal websurfing, video playing, etc that will matter and the gaming capability will just be the icing on the cake. That or it's just icing on a turd. Haven't seen any normal battery life numbers for this thing.

The resolution is quite low, but 1080p on a 10" tablet is way small. I'm use to it. Been using touchscreen for a long time, but everyone that's used my tablet has trouble using it. Windows 8, at 1080p, on a 10" tablet is a rough one to use for many. So I think the resolution for the Razer Edge Pro will be fine for most everyone.

 

[RangerXML]

I'd actually wager that Razer is actually hurting gaming by making these overpriced and under powered devices,

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

^ That's actually a pretty decent boost in peformance.
I'm actually a bit surprised that that tablet can OC that far.

I will admit that I haven't seen another tablet yet that can to OCing to that extent, nice job.

I'd imagine that this would do a real number on battery life though...

 

[wonderfield]

Or maybe hoping that other makers will follow the same path(dedicated GPU in a tablet)

I don't think that's going to be necessary. Early indications are that Haswell's GT3e graphics perform roughly on par with a GT 650M. It's just a question of whether the high-end Haswell graphic spec is going to find its way into low-power tablet-oriented parts. I suspect that Intel will be pushing fairly hard to get the better GPU specs into their low-power parts, though.

These first x86 tablets, particularly the Clover Trail ones, are really just for early adopters. The shortcomings are significant. Later Haswell- post-Haswell x86 tablets are going to be significantly better, and I honestly don't really see Razer doing anything of significance in that space.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Even at $1200, it's pushing the envelope of bullshit that people will accept.
It fails as a tablet due to the high price.
It fails as a gaming system due to the low-end GPU.

That leaves it in a tiny niche market where only a select few are going to actually go along with this product.
Because anyone else with a brain who wants gaming on the go will either go for a laptop or a hand-held console for a fraction of the price.

Like I said, good concept, but the tech isn't there yet.
Give this ten years and I might end up agreeing with you.

We get it. You don't like it, and that's fine.

No one is trying to force you to buy it. Go buy a higher end gaming laptop if that's what you want.

I don't want a gaming laptop.

I do my real gaming on my desktop. I'd just like a tablet for light x86 gaming for when I'm at the airport or on a plane.

For that purpose the 640LE at 1366x768 is more than adequate, and I'd happily pay the extra $300 - or whatever it is - premium over an equivalent laptop in order to not have to use the clunky laptop format. I think it's well worth it.

I would prefer a AMD Trinity based model though , just to keep the price down a little bit. I don't think I'd need the extra performance of either an Ivy bridge CPU or a discrete mobile GPU in the tablet form factor. (At least if they could make the thermal envelope of the A8-4555M, or A10-4655M work in this form factor)

You don't like it. That's fine, don't buy it.

There's no need to try to start an argument over it though.

For desktops, I agree. Performance at any cost.

For mobile solutions there are a lot more variables, and in many cases, a lower performing device CAN be more desirable than a higher performing one.

All this being said, I don't think its quite ready yet. Razer is first to market with this, and undoubtedly some people will buy it.

I'll wait a little bir for battery life to improve, thickness to go down and price to be a little bit better, and hopefully by then i'll be able to get an AMD Fusion model.

 

[Red Falcon]

rant

lol, you should have read some of my later posts.
It would have saved you the time and trouble of that post.

 

[Red Falcon]

It's funny that at $1200, people are buying the Acer W700 like hotcakes and it's not as capable as the Razer Edge Pro. Granted, it has better battery life, but it was designed to be just a high end tablet, not a gaming machine.

That is very surprising.
I would image, if one isn't looking for a gaming laptop at that price point, that they would just go with a Macbook Pro.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Disposed]

We get it. You don't like it, and that's fine.

No one is trying to force you to buy it. Go buy a higher end gaming laptop if that's what you want.

I don't want a gaming laptop.

I do my real gaming on my desktop. I'd just like a tablet for light x86 gaming for when I'm at the airport or on a plane.

For that purpose the 640LE at 1366x768 is more than adequate, and I'd happily pay the extra $300 - or whatever it is - premium over an equivalent laptop in order to not have to use the clunky laptop format. I think it's well worth it.

I would prefer a AMD Trinity based model though , just to keep the price down a little bit. I don't think I'd need the extra performance of either an Ivy bridge CPU or a discrete mobile GPU in the tablet form factor. (At least if they could make the thermal envelope of the A8-4555M, or A10-4655M work in this form factor)

You don't like it. That's fine, don't buy it.

There's no need to try to start an argument over it though.

For desktops, I agree. Performance at any cost.

For mobile solutions there are a lot more variables, and in many cases, a lower performing device CAN be more desirable than a higher performing one.

All this being said, I don't think its quite ready yet. Razer is first to market with this, and undoubtedly some people will buy it.

I'll wait a little bir for battery life to improve, thickness to go down and price to be a little bit better, and hopefully by then i'll be able to get an AMD Fusion model.

We get it, you like it now go buy it but don't cone in here trying to convince people that a 640m is perfectly adequate. As it is it barely scoots by in most current games and its completely fucked on anything new that's not completely dumbed down for consoles.

There are already a good chunk of games that hardware simply can't play. You're paying a premium for seriously weak hardware and the trying to tell us how adequate it is? And all that is without even starting on that laughable dual core joke.

So yeah it's not adequate, and frankly the performance it gives would have been considered mid range in 2008. Far from adequate, enjoy angry birds.

 

[heatlesssun]

These first x86 tablets, particularly the Clover Trail ones, are really just for early adopters. The shortcomings are significant. Later Haswell- post-Haswell x86 tablets are going to be significantly better, and I honestly don't really see Razer doing anything of significance in that space.

Low power x86 hardware looks to make some considerable leaps in the coming year. I think even more important than Haswell in the x86 tablet market will be Bay Trail, the successor to Clover Trail. Intel is saying that Bay Trial has overall 2x the performance of Clover Trail in about the same power signature.

As for Clover Trail, it has it shortcomings but it also has its strengths which are the weight and size of the devices that it can support along with it's battery life.

 

[Red Falcon]

Low power x86 hardware looks to make some considerable leaps in the coming year. I think even more important than Haswell in the x86 tablet market will be Bay Trail, the successor to Clover Trail. Intel is saying that Bay Trial has overall 2x the performance of Clover Trail in about the same power signature.

As for Clover Trail, it has it shortcomings but it also has its strengths which are the weight and size of the devices that it can support along with it's battery life.

I've heard this for years.
The newest Atom processor has little over an ancient Atom 330 in terms of real-world performance.

I can appreciate innovation, but I'm just not seeing it in the performance area of an Atom processor, even for general, everyday tasks like Office and web browsing.

 

[heatlesssun]

I can appreciate innovation, but I'm just not seeing it in the performance area of an Atom processor, even for general, everyday tasks like Office and web browsing.

All I know is that I've been using OneNote, Word, Excel, IE 10 both versions, VLC, uTorrent, etc. on a Clover Trail device for some time and while not the fastest platform obviously it handles these applications very well, especially considering the thing can run beyond an 8 hour business day on a single charge.

 

[RangerXML]

Looks like Razer is already starting contests to get the Razer Edge out there.

http://www.razerzone.com/gettheedge?rid=3c0d4724a1f2e8ae49f8b98e4c904a25

 

[Red Falcon]

All I know is that I've been using OneNote, Word, Excel, IE 10 both versions, VLC, uTorrent, etc. on a Clover Trail device for some time and while not the fastest platform obviously it handles these applications very well, especially considering the thing can run beyond an 8 hour business day on a single charge.

"Very well" is an over statement.
I've worked with many Atom processors, and even with a SSD, they lag horribly.

 

[krotch]

The single core Atoms were just terrible, but the dual core Atoms are liveable.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I've heard this for years.
The newest Atom processor has little over an ancient Atom 330 in terms of real-world performance.

I can appreciate innovation, but I'm just not seeing it in the performance area of an Atom processor, even for general, everyday tasks like Office and web browsing.

The performance has gone up a little bit IPC wise, but frequency seems to stay at ~1.6Ghz for Netbook-type models.

Where the real improvements have been made are in power usage. The Cedarview model that is equivalent to the 330 (but a little faster) has a 3.5W listed TDP, whereas the Atom 330 was an 8W unit. All in all it's a ~150% improvement as far as performance / watt goes.

And Cedarview isn't even that new, having launched over a year ago.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

"Very well" is an over statement.
I've worked with many Atom processors, and even with a SSD, they lag horribly.

I've never actually used an Atom system, but I did build a system around an AMD E-350 board a while back, and my assessment is that it was more than fast enough for typical office use. If all you do is office work (email, word, excel, powerpoint, web business apps, and some light web browsing) I really see no reason for a faster CPU than this.

Gaming - on the other hand - is completely different.

 

[MikeTrike]

My Acer W510 doesn't lag at all with it's tiny Atom CPU.

 

[Red Falcon]

I've never actually used an Atom system, but I did build a system around an AMD E-350 board a while back, and my assessment is that it was more than fast enough for typical office use. If all you do is office work (email, word, excel, powerpoint, web business apps, and some light web browsing) I really see no reason for a faster CPU than this.

Gaming - on the other hand - is completely different.

The AMD E-350 will run circles around even the fastest Atom.
Mainly because it supports OOE, something that Atom processors will apparently never have due to power restrictions.

While it is neat that Intel has lessened the power envelope of the Atom from 8 watts on the 330 to what it is now, the performance has improved by maybe 5%, tops.
I've worked on modern Atom processors, and they are no faster in real-world applications than the 330 was back in 2008.

heatlesssun trying to convince people that his "Clover Trail" processor can do common tasks well is really making me laugh.
There is nothing special about that processor, other than the fact that it is being sold in an over-priced, Microsoft proprietary piece of equipment.

It's good to hear that the IPC has improved, but that's not enough to save it with IOE.
In all reality, those processors are about the equivalent of a first generation Pentium 4 from 2000.

 

[Red Falcon]

All I know is that I've been using OneNote, Word, Excel, IE 10 both versions, VLC, uTorrent, etc. on a Clover Trail device for some time and while not the fastest platform obviously it handles these applications very well, especially considering the thing can run beyond an 8 hour business day on a single charge.

This is the same platform that struggles to play 1080p videos.
Yeah, you can keep it.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Low power x86 hardware looks to make some considerable leaps in the coming year. I think even more important than Haswell in the x86 tablet market will be Bay Trail, the successor to Clover Trail. Intel is saying that Bay Trial has overall 2x the performance of Clover Trail in about the same power signature.

True.

Low power hardware will always improve, but so will hardware in the desktop performance categories.

Unless chip manufacturers completely abandon the enthusiast high end hardware market, Desktop chips will always be faster by a pretty good margin than low power mobile parts.

So, while low power parts will improve to be able to run current game titles better and better, high end parts will improve as well, as will software and games that take advantage of them.

I feel it will be a never ending game of catch-up on the low power end of the spectrum.

I mean think of it this way. Take the 18W TDP AMD E-350 I built. Dual core 1.6Ghz and integrated GPU.

If you only go back to when I was in college which wasn't THAT long ago (I graduated in 2003) that would have been the fastest gaming rig anyone had ever seen.

I mean, back then I had a single palomino core Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53Ghz) and a GeForce 3 Ti500. I can't remember for sure, but I think it only had 256Mb or 512MB of RAM. It produced a lot of heat and was loud and obnoxious with all its fans (my roomate didn't like it much). A modern day AMD E-350 would hand that rig its ass in every possible way, and be nice and quiet while doing so.

Likewise, I feel certain the low power models of the future will surpass even our top end performance CPU's now. But they will probably still be outperformed.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

This is the same platform that struggles to play 1080p videos.
Yeah, you can keep it.

Yeah, that's its major drawback for home users. Most of its 1080p issues come from codecs that are not optimized for GPU decodes though. If you can GPU decode stuff, they are pretty good for that kind of stuff.

I'd wager that in an office environment, they would more than suffice, and save a business lots of money both on purchase and on the power bill.

 

[Red Falcon]

True.

Low power hardware will always improve, but so will hardware in the desktop performance categories.

Unless chip manufacturers completely abandon the enthusiast high end hardware market, Desktop chips will always be faster by a pretty good margin than low power mobile parts.

So, while low power parts will improve to be able to run current game titles better and better, high end parts will improve as well, as will software and games that take advantage of them.

I feel it will be a never ending game of catch-up on the low power end of the spectrum.

I mean think of it this way. Take the 18W TDP AMD E-350 I built. Dual core 1.6Ghz and integrated GPU.

If you only go back to when I was in college which wasn't THAT long ago (I graduated in 2003) that would have been the fastest gaming rig anyone had ever seen.

I mean, back then I had a single palomino core Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53Ghz) and a GeForce 3 Ti500. I can't remember for sure, but I think it only had 256Mb or 512MB of RAM. It produced a lot of heat and was loud and obnoxious with all its fans (my roomate didn't like it much). A modern day AMD E-350 would hand that rig its ass in every possible way, and be nice and quiet while doing so.

Likewise, I feel certain the low power models of the future will surpass even our top end performance CPU's now. But they will probably still be outperformed.

2003 was a decade ago.
While I agree with you, you are kind of stating the obvious.

Your system from '03 would have done the same to system from '93, technology will continue to advance.
The difference that you aren't seeing is that an E-350 will even hand an Atom it's ass in both CPU and GPU capabilities.

Atom processors will never be there, ever.
Again, the newest Atom processor is maybe 5% faster than the 330 from 2008, that was 5 years ago; I expect to see better performance increases after 5 years, especially for a processor.

5-10 years may not be that long, but in terms of computers, every 1 year is about 10 years for everything else.
A 10 year old computer is an antique by today's standards.

A 5 year old computer is on it's last legs.
I don't want to buy a desktop/tablet with a processor that is only 5% faster than one from 5 years ago.

But whatever, heatlesssun will buy whatever Microsoft puts out.
They could start selling Surfaces with an N270 and heatlesssun would find a way to put a positive twist on how great the CPU is.

 

[Red Falcon]

We get it, you like it now go buy it but don't cone in here trying to convince people that a 640m is perfectly adequate. As it is it barely scoots by in most current games and its completely fucked on anything new that's not completely dumbed down for consoles.

There are already a good chunk of games that hardware simply can't play. You're paying a premium for seriously weak hardware and the trying to tell us how adequate it is? And all that is without even starting on that laughable dual core joke.

So yeah it's not adequate, and frankly the performance it gives would have been considered mid range in 2008. Far from adequate, enjoy angry birds.

Actually, a 640M LE would allow the tablet to have really great playback on 1080p+ videos and actually would provide decent 3D graphics performance.
Perhaps not so much for mainstream games, but other 3D applications would certainly benefit.

I'm not going to give the Razer Edge Pro so much crap any more, it actually is kind of an innovative idea, and I would much rather pay for one of these with a decent processor and GPU over that Microsoft proprietary garbage at a similar price.
After seeing what it is and could be capable of, I take back my previous comments about it.

 

[heatlesssun]

This is the same platform that struggles to play 1080p videos.
Yeah, you can keep it.

Depends on what you mean by 1080P. Native Blu Rays aren't going to run, 1080P through YouTube and local content with bitrates at 9Mpbs and lower work fine in my testing even at 1080P resolution via an external monitor.

But whatever, heatlesssun will buy whatever Microsoft puts out.
They could start selling Surfaces with an N270 and heatlesssun would find a way to put a positive twist on how great the CPU is.

One reason why I think Clover Trails are pretty decent is because I have older Atom hardware running Windows 8 and the 500T simply runs much better with much better battery life and much lower heat output.

 

[Red Falcon]

Depends on what you mean by 1080P. Native Blu Rays aren't going to run, 1080P through YouTube and local content with bitrates at 9Mpbs and lower work fine in my testing even at 1080P resolution via an external monitor.

This is what I'm saying.
The performance differences between a 2008 Atom and a 2012/3 Atom are non-existent.

I get the battery life thing, but why even bother?
Just go with a Droid tablet or iPad and be done with it, even those can handle 1080p Blu-Ray rips.

And before you say it, yes, I get that it can run legacy and new x86 applications.
But again, the performance sucks.

Either get a tablet for fun things like movies and games, or get a full tablet to do work.
This middle-man Atom processor tablet isn't going to last.

One reason why I think Clover Trails are pretty decent is because I have older Atom hardware running Windows 8 and the 500T simply runs much better with much better battery life and much lower heat output.

LMAO
I zing you, and you give me a PR statement, hahahaha!

 

[ColdRush]

I'll agree with Falcon and say that the Atom needs to either receive a major overhaul or get cut altogether in favor of the latest gen celerons which have shown themselves to be pretty great performers.

 

[heatlesssun]

This is what I'm saying.
The performance differences between a 2008 Atom and a 2012/3 Atom are non-existent.

I get the battery life thing, but why even bother?
Just go with a Droid tablet or iPad and be done with it, even those can handle 1080p Blu-Ray rips.

Anyone here with a Android or iPad running a native BD rip on it with no problems? The main problem with a native BD is the size, 30-40GB plus. It's easier to use the digital copy that comes with all BD copies these days.

And before you say it, yes, I get that it can run legacy and new x86 applications.
But again, the performance sucks.

Depends on the desktop application in question. There's simply far too many desktop applications to make wholesale judgments as to how well they would run and under what circumstances. I've only pointed mentioned the apps I've tried, not the zillions I've not.

Either get a tablet for fun things like movies and games, or get a full tablet to do work.
This middle-man Atom processor tablet isn't going to last.

LMAO
I zing you, and you give me a PR statement, hahahaha!

Seems like using a computer to you is now a PR statement.