-Screen (@dinjin201, You really need to get your eyes checked...more on this in the summary.)
-Switchblade UI (@dinjin201, Odd trackpad you say? Bad for gamers you say?...more on this in the summary.)
Summary The Razer Blade is what Razer would like you to believe is the world's first gaming laptop; it is. You are asking yourself, what about Alienware, Origin, etc.? Well, even though those laptops play games extremely well, (much better than the Blade, I might add) they are not really "laptops" anymore. I use the term laptop as a computer that has the balance between portability and performance. With Razer's competitors they have almost no portability and have become desktop replacements. As we advance in technology with the introduction of ultrabooks, we will start to see more and more devices like the Blade.
Now onto the Pros.
The Razer Blade is incredibly slim at less than an inch thick, being even slimmer than a Macbook Pro at .88 inches thick versus .98 inches thick! This is incredible for a laptop with the performance of the Blade. Also, at an incredible 6.4 pounds it beats the 17" Macbook Pro at 6.6 pounds. (@dinjin201, Whoever told you the Macbook Pro would be better for gaming is crazy, especially considering the lack of Windows and games on OS X. Save a few hundred dollars? At the time of writing for a comparable (Late 2011) Macbook Pro 17" with 8gb RAM, 256 gb SSD (Sata II), matte 1200p (16:10 vs 16:9 1080p) display is $3,250.)
@dinjin201 I would also like to add that having an optical drive internally makes absolutely zero sense in 2012. Do you really need to have it while on the go? If you absolutely need one (which you don't) then get an external...you don't need one on the go.
The screen is an impressive 17.3" matte 1080p display. Black levels are incredible for LED (After having SAMOLED on a phone, nothing compares) and viewing angles are OK. (Not nearly as good as an IPS display (like the 17" Macbook Pro), but not bad. The main reason Razer chose not to use an IPS display was because of the increased delay in screen responsiveness, though I have no idea the millisecond delay time on the Blade's screen. Saying this was a good or bad move is subjective, but considering it was made for gaming, probably a good one. Also, probably cost.) Btw, thanks Razer for not including a glossy screen; death to glossy screens!
The Switchblade UI, the most intuitive part of the Blade has so much potential. Right now its uses are limited (trackpad specifically), but I can foresee its use in games...such as a mini-map or informative secondary display.) Using the trackpad for gaming is a no-no, just like all other trackpads. The ten customize-able keys are extremely useful for quick-launching applications and such, but considering most use WASD, while gaming, to reach that far is ludicrous, as is to drop your mouse. (Shooters comes to mind specifically, though some uses for MMOs come to mind.)
@dinjin201 Any self-respecting gamer will use a mouse, not sure how it is bad for gamers...maybe southpaws, but even then most left-handed people I know use a mouse with their right hands.
On the Con.
The Blade is most certainly overpriced, but considering the R&D to enter the computer market from scratch and building an amazing machine, is understandable. A more appropriate price would have been ~$2,500 (after taxes).
While I say the Macbook Pro is not better than the Razer Blade for gaming, I am no Apple hater. The one advantage the Macbook Pro has is a quad-core versus a dual-core processor. Also, an IPS screen if you're into that sort of thing. Let me also add that the GPU (GT 555M; this is custom...based on the 555M, not all 555Ms are created equal) on the Blade is no slouch and is much better than a 6770m (VRAM is 2gb (Blade) versus 1gb (MBP)).
I didn't go into the sound quality at all, but it isn't bad (for a laptop anyway) and is what was expected, noticeably lacks bass though.
Wish I could go into performance, but I think it might be better to read anandtech's review.
*I must stress, this is not a desktop replacement or ever was meant to be. This is meant for gamers who need a balance of portability and performance. I'm looking at you dinjin201.*
-LCD Touchscreen (LOL but who would use it anyway)
-Many features useless
-No CD Drive
Summary Think about it, you are building a laptop for gamers, so what do you do? Sacrifice all the performance and then add features that are useless to the average gamer. The touchpad is cool and all but a gamer will use a mouse, they are much more effective. The 555m Graphics card is an utter joke, a 560m is 30% worse than an ATI 5770 Desktop card making the 555m the equivalent of like a $75 Card which is terrible for gamers. The processor is second gen and still not bee updated. And seriously? $2800 price tag? That is where you are relying on brand name alone to sell your laptop just like how Apple sells their macs, DONT BE AN APPLE RAZER...
Pros Really nothing out of the ordinary. No pros to speak of.
Cons Again, too much of nothing for lots of money. The guys right, you can get a MAC with more for less $
Summary Just not enough effort. you know?
Pros Customizable keyboard
Cons Odd trackpad. Terrible value for gamers.
You must be connected to Razernet for your trackpad to work properly, IE no cloud, no special button support....
Lack of internal CD drive - which may be needed by some games.
Summary If you want a thin and light machine with good battery life, and powerful enough to play games on the go, get a Macbook Pro. You'll save a few hundred dollars...
That being said, if you're any sort of serious gamer, you will want a desktop. Or a giant slab of Alienware that's packed with power on the inside. While the Macbook pros are decent for gaming, they are a huge step up from this piece of crap from Razer, but again, serious gamers will want even better hardware on the go.
When it comes to this thing, it doesn't even have a built in CD drive that can be used to install games you may own. Worse, even, is the atrocious screen quality - because they had to shave off some thickness...