- pan.tf
- Compare
- Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) vs VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023)
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) vs Asus VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023)
What Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) does better (11) and where VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023) wins (20) — every spec side by side.
vs
4.2Graphics7.5
6.5Overall performance8.9
7.1Display9.1
8.0Memory & storage6.7
9.2Battery & portability9.6
8.8Features & cooling8.9
Dimensions
Size comparison
Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023)
| Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023) | VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depth | 249.2 mm | 249 mm | +0.2 mm |
| Width | 356 mm | 355 mm | +1 mm |
| Thickness | 20.8 mm | 22.9 mm | −2.1 mm |
| Weight | 2 kg | 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 VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023)?
- SSD (up to)4,096 GB vs 2,048 GB2×
- G-Sync / FreeSyncYes · VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023): No
- Advanced OptimusYes · VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023): No
- RAM typeLPDDR5X vs DDR5
- M.2 SSD slots2 vs 12×
- Liquid metal (CPU)Yes · VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023): No
- Brightness400 nits vs 350 nits+14%
- Thickness20.8 mm vs 22.9 mm+10%
- RAM speed7,467 MHz vs 4,800 MHz+56%
- Fan noise (max. load)51 dB vs 56.9 dB+12%
- Key travel1.5 mm vs 1.4 mm+7%
Why is VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023) better than Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2023)?
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light7,896 vs 13,926+76%
- GPU compute (FP32)12.1 TFLOPS vs 20 TFLOPS+65%
- Cinebench 2024 multi-core979 vs 2,1002.1×
- Resolution classFull HD (1080p/1200p) vs QHD (1440p/1600p)
- Panel typeIPS vs OLED
- Battery capacity76 Wh vs 90 Wh+18%
- Geekbench 6 multi-core12,581 vs 17,875+42%
- GPU power (TGP)110 W vs 125 W+14%
- GPU shader cores2,560 vs 4,608+80%
- CPU cores16 vs 24+50%
- Weight2.05 kg vs 2 kg+2%
- Video memory6 GB vs 8 GB+33%
Specifications
Side by side
| Graphics | ||
| Graphics card | GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop | GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop |
| GPU maker | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
| GPU power (TGP) | 110 W | 125 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 | 20 TFLOPS |
| 3DMark Steel Nomad Light | 7,896 | 13,926 |
| Processor | ||
| Processor | Core Ultra 7 155H | Core i9-13980HX |
| CPU maker | Intel | Intel |
| CPU cores | 16 | 24 |
| CPU threads | 22 | 32 |
| Max CPU clock | 4.8 GHz | 5.6 GHz |
| Processor options | Core Ultra 7 155H, Core Ultra 7 165H, Core Ultra 9 185H | Core i9-13980HX |
| Geekbench 6 multi-core | 12,581 | 17,875 |
| Geekbench 6 single-core | 2,465 | 2,823 |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 979 | 2,100 |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 16″ | 16″ |
| Resolution | 1920 × 1080 | 2560 × 1600 |
| Resolution class | Full HD (1080p/1200p) | QHD (1440p/1600p) |
| Refresh rate | 165 Hz | 165 Hz |
| Panel type | IPS | OLED |
| Brightness | 400 nits | 350 nits |
| sRGB coverage | — | 100% |
| Response time | — | 1 ms |
| Pixel density | 138 ppi | 189 ppi |
| Aspect ratio | 16:10 | 16:10 |
| G-Sync / FreeSync | Yes | No |
| Advanced Optimus | Yes | No |
| MUX switch | Yes | Yes |
| HDR | No | Yes |
| Touchscreen | No | No |
| Memory & storage | ||
| RAM (up to) | 64 GB | 64 GB |
| RAM (base) | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM type | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |
| RAM speed | 7,467 MHz | 4,800 MHz |
| Max. supported RAM | — | 64 GB |
| RAM slots | — | 2 |
| Upgradable RAM | No | Yes |
| SSD (up to) | 4,096 GB | 2,048 GB |
| SSD (base) | 512 GB | 512 GB |
| M.2 SSD slots | 2 | 1 |
| 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 kg |
| Thickness | 20.8 mm | 22.9 mm |
| Width | 356 mm | 355 mm |
| Depth | 249.2 mm | 249 mm |
| Body material | Aluminium | Plastic |
| Colours | Silver | Black, Silver |
| Cooling fans | 2 | 3 |
| Vapor chamber cooling | No | No |
| Liquid metal (CPU) | Yes | No |
| Fan noise (max. load) | 51 dB | 56.9 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 2.1 |
| HDMI 2.1 | Yes | Yes |
| (Mini) DisplayPort | No | No |
| Ethernet port | No | Yes |
| SD card reader | Yes | Yes |
| 3.5 mm audio jack | Yes | Yes |
| Wi-Fi standard | Wi-Fi 6E | Wi-Fi 6E |
| Bluetooth | 5.3 | 5.3 |
| Keyboard & camera | ||
| Backlit keyboard | Yes | Yes |
| Numeric keypad | No | Yes |
| Key travel | 1.5 mm | 1.4 mm |
| Webcam | 1,080p | 1,080p |
| IR camera (face login) | No | No |
| Fingerprint reader | — | Yes |
| Audio | ||
| Speakers | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 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)vsAsus TUF Gaming F15 TUF507 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 ROG Zephyrus M16 GU604 RTX 4080 (2023)vsAsus VivoBook Pro 16X 3D OLED K6604 RTX 4070 (2023)9.49.4