- pan.tf
- Compare
- Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) vs TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023)
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) vs Asus TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023)
What Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) does better (16) and where TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023) wins (12) — every spec side by side.
vs
4.2Graphics8.2
6.5Overall performance7.6
7.1Display6.0
8.0Memory & storage2.8
9.2Battery & portability9.6
8.8Features & cooling5.2
Dimensions
Size comparison
Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023)
| Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) | TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depth | 249.2 mm | 251 mm | −1.8 mm |
| Width | 356 mm | 354 mm | +2 mm |
| Thickness | 20.8 mm | 23 mm | −2.2 mm |
| Weight | 2 kg | 2.2 kg | −0.2 kg |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) better than TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023)?
- RAM (up to)64 GB vs 16 GB4×
- SSD (up to)4,096 GB vs 1,000 GB4.1×
- CPU cores16 vs 10+60%
- Refresh rate165 Hz vs 144 Hz+15%
- Weight2.05 kg vs 2.2 kg+7%
- Brightness400 nits vs 300 nits+33%
- Advanced OptimusYes · TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023): No
- RAM typeLPDDR5X vs DDR5
- Liquid metal (CPU)Yes · TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023): No
- HDMI 2.1Yes · TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023): No
- SD card readerYes · TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023): No
- Thickness20.8 mm vs 23 mm+11%
Why is TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023) better than Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)?
- GPU compute (FP32)12.1 TFLOPS vs 21.8 TFLOPS+80%
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light7,896 vs 14,045+78%
- GPU power (TGP)110 W vs 140 W+27%
- Battery capacity76 Wh vs 90 Wh+18%
- GPU shader cores2,560 vs 4,608+80%
- Video memory6 GB vs 8 GB+33%
- Upgradable RAMNo · Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023): Yes
- Dolby AtmosNo · Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023): Yes
- SSD (base)512 GB vs 1,000 GB+95%
- Key travel1.5 mm vs 1.7 mm+13%
- Pixel density138 ppi vs 141 ppi+2%
- Max CPU clock4.8 GHz vs 4.9 GHz+2%
Specifications
Side by side
| Graphics | ||
| Graphics card | GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop | GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop |
| GPU maker | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
| GPU power (TGP) | 110 W | 140 W |
| Video memory | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Video memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| GPU shader cores | 2,560 | 4,608 |
| GPU compute (FP32) | 12.1 TFLOPS | 21.8 TFLOPS |
| 3DMark Steel Nomad Light | 7,896 | 14,045 |
| Processor | ||
| Processor | Core Ultra 7 155H | Core i7-13620H |
| CPU maker | Intel | Intel |
| CPU cores | 16 | 10 |
| CPU threads | 22 | — |
| Max CPU clock | 4.8 GHz | 4.9 GHz |
| Processor options | Core Ultra 7 155H, Core Ultra 7 165H, Core Ultra 9 185H | Core i7-12700H, Core i7-13620H, Core i7-13700H, Core i9-13900H |
| Geekbench 6 multi-core | 12,581 | — |
| Geekbench 6 single-core | 2,465 | — |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 979 | — |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 16″ | 15.6″ |
| Resolution | 1920 × 1080 | 1920 × 1080 |
| Resolution class | Full HD (1080p/1200p) | Full HD (1080p/1200p) |
| Refresh rate | 165 Hz | 144 Hz |
| Panel type | IPS | IPS |
| Brightness | 400 nits | 300 nits |
| sRGB coverage | — | 100% |
| Response time | — | 7 ms |
| Pixel density | 138 ppi | 141 ppi |
| Aspect ratio | 16:10 | 16:9 |
| G-Sync / FreeSync | Yes | Yes |
| Advanced Optimus | Yes | No |
| MUX switch | Yes | Yes |
| HDR | No | No |
| Touchscreen | No | No |
| Memory & storage | ||
| RAM (up to) | 64 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM (base) | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM type | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |
| RAM speed | 7,467 MHz | 4,800 MHz |
| Max. supported RAM | — | 32 GB |
| RAM slots | — | 2 |
| Upgradable RAM | No | Yes |
| SSD (up to) | 4,096 GB | 1,000 GB |
| SSD (base) | 512 GB | 1,000 GB |
| M.2 SSD slots | 2 | 2 |
| SSD interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Battery & power | ||
| Battery capacity | 76 Wh | 90 Wh |
| Power adapter | 230 W | 240 W |
| USB-C charging (Power Delivery) | Yes | Yes |
| Design & cooling | ||
| Weight | 2.05 kg | 2.2 kg |
| Thickness | 20.8 mm | 23 mm |
| Width | 356 mm | 354 mm |
| Depth | 249.2 mm | 251 mm |
| Body material | Aluminium | Aluminium, Plastic |
| Colours | Silver | Black |
| Cooling fans | 2 | 2 |
| Vapor chamber cooling | No | No |
| Liquid metal (CPU) | Yes | No |
| Fan noise (max. load) | 51 dB | — |
| Ports & wireless | ||
| Thunderbolt / USB4 | Thunderbolt 4 | Thunderbolt 4 |
| Thunderbolt or USB4 | Yes | Yes |
| USB-C ports | 2 | 2 |
| USB-A ports | 2 | 2 |
| HDMI | HDMI 2.1 | HDMI 2.0 |
| HDMI 2.1 | Yes | No |
| (Mini) DisplayPort | No | Yes |
| Ethernet port | No | Yes |
| SD card reader | Yes | No |
| 3.5 mm audio jack | Yes | Yes |
| Wi-Fi standard | Wi-Fi 6E | Wi-Fi 6 |
| Bluetooth | 5.3 | 5.2 |
| Keyboard & camera | ||
| Backlit keyboard | Yes | Yes |
| Numeric keypad | No | Yes |
| Key travel | 1.5 mm | 1.7 mm |
| Webcam | 1,080p | 720p |
| IR camera (face login) | No | No |
| Fingerprint reader | — | No |
| Audio | ||
| Speakers | 2.0 | 2 speakers |
| Dolby Atmos | No | Yes |
Related comparisons
vs
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)vsAsus ROG Strix G16 G614 RTX 4070 (2023)7.97.7vs
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)vsGigabyte Aero 16 OLED BSF RTX 4070 (2023)7.97.7vs
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)vsHP Omen 16 RTX 4070 (2023)7.97.6vs
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)vsAcer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)7.96.6
vs
Asus TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023)vsAsus TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5060 (2025)7.77.5vsAsus ROG Strix G16 G614 RTX 4070 (2023)vsAsus TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 RTX 4070 (2023)7.77.7