- pan.tf
- Compare
- Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024) vs TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5070 (2025)
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024) vs Asus TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5070 (2025)
What Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024) does better (2) and where TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5070 (2025) wins (8) — every spec side by side.
vs
2.4Memory & storage2.4
9.3Battery & portability8.5
8.4Features & cooling7.5
Dimensions
Size comparison
Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5070 (2025)
| Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024) | TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5070 (2025) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depth | 250 mm | 269 mm | −19 mm |
| Width | 356 mm | 354 mm | +2 mm |
| Thickness | 21 mm | 27 mm | −6 mm |
| Weight | 2.1 kg | 2.2 kg | −0.1 kg |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024) better than TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5070 (2025)?
- Weight2.1 kg vs 2.2 kg+5%
- Thickness21 mm vs 27 mm+29%
Why is TUF Gaming F16 TUF608 RTX 5070 (2025) better than Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)?
- Video memory6 GB vs 16 GB2.7×
- Resolution classHD (768p/900p) vs QHD (1440p/1600p)
- Battery capacity76 Wh vs 90 Wh+18%
- SSD (up to)512 GB vs 1,000 GB+95%
- GPU shader cores2,560 vs 4,608+80%
- SSD (base)512 GB vs 1,000 GB+95%
- CPU cores14 vs 16+14%
- Max CPU clock4.5 GHz vs 5.2 GHz+16%
Specifications
Side by side
| Graphics | ||
| Graphics card | GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop | GeForce RTX 5070 Laptop |
| GPU maker | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
| Video memory | 6 GB | 16 GB |
| Video memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR7 |
| GPU shader cores | 2,560 | 4,608 |
| Processor | ||
| Processor | Core Ultra 5 125H | Core i7-14650HX |
| CPU maker | Intel | Intel |
| CPU cores | 14 | 16 |
| Max CPU clock | 4.5 GHz | 5.2 GHz |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 16″ | 16″ |
| Resolution | 1600 × 900 | 2560 × 1600 |
| Resolution class | HD (768p/900p) | QHD (1440p/1600p) |
| Refresh rate | — | 165 Hz |
| Panel type | — | IPS |
| Aspect ratio | 16:10 | — |
| Memory & storage | ||
| RAM (up to) | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM (base) | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM type | DDR5 | DDR5 |
| RAM speed | — | 5,600 MHz |
| SSD (up to) | 512 GB | 1,000 GB |
| SSD (base) | 512 GB | 1,000 GB |
| Battery & power | ||
| Battery capacity | 76 Wh | 90 Wh |
| Power adapter | 230 W | — |
| Design & cooling | ||
| Weight | 2.1 kg | 2.2 kg |
| Thickness | 21 mm | 27 mm |
| Width | 356 mm | 354 mm |
| Depth | 250 mm | 269 mm |
| Colours | — | Grey |
| Ports & wireless | ||
| Thunderbolt / USB4 | Thunderbolt 4 | Thunderbolt 4 |
| Thunderbolt or USB4 | Yes | Yes |
| HDMI | HDMI 2.1 | HDMI 2.1 |
| HDMI 2.1 | Yes | Yes |
| (Mini) DisplayPort | Yes | — |
| Ethernet port | Yes | Yes |
| SD card reader | Yes | — |
| 3.5 mm audio jack | Yes | — |
| Wi-Fi standard | Wi-Fi 6 | Wi-Fi 6 |
| Bluetooth | 5.3 | 5.3 |
| Keyboard & camera | ||
| Backlit keyboard | — | Yes |
| Webcam | 1,080p | — |
| Audio | ||
| Speakers | 2 speakers | 2 speakers |
| Dolby Atmos | — | Yes |
Related comparisons
vs
Asus TUF Gaming F16 RTX 4050 (2024)vsAcer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)6.66.7
vsMSI Katana A15 AI RTX 4060 (2024)vsAcer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)6.66.7
vsGigabyte G5 RTX 4050 (2024)vsAcer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)6.46.7
vsMSI Creator M16 HX RTX 4070 (2024)vsAcer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)6.76.7
vsLenovo LOQ 15AHP9 RTX 4060 (2024)vsAcer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)6.46.7
vsLenovo Legion Pro 5i Gen 9 RTX 4050 (2024)vsAcer Predator Triton Neo 16 PTN16-51 RTX 4050 (2024)6.66.7