Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025) vs MSI Raider 16 HX B2W RTX 5080 (2026)
What Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025) does better (5) and where Raider 16 HX B2W RTX 5080 (2026) wins (2) — every spec side by side.
vs
9.8Display9.1
2.6Memory & storage5.3
Why is Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025) better than Raider 16 HX B2W RTX 5080 (2026)?
- Panel typeMini-LED vs IPS
- Battery capacity99 Wh vs 92 Wh+8%
- Refresh rate300 Hz vs 240 Hz+25%
- Video memory24 GB vs 16 GB+50%
- GPU shader cores10,496 vs 7,680+37%
Why is Raider 16 HX B2W RTX 5080 (2026) better than Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025)?
- Thunderbolt or USB4No · Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025): Yes
- HDMI 2.1No · Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025): Yes
Specifications
Side by side
| Graphics | ||
| Graphics card | GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop | GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop |
| GPU maker | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
| GPU power (TGP) | — | 175 W |
| Video memory | 24 GB | 16 GB |
| Video memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR7 |
| GPU shader cores | 10,496 | 7,680 |
| GPU compute (FP32) | — | 42 TFLOPS |
| 3DMark Steel Nomad Light | — | 24,199 |
| Processor | ||
| Processor | Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
| CPU maker | Intel | Intel |
| CPU cores | — | 24 |
| Max CPU clock | — | 5.4 GHz |
| Processor options | Ryzen 9 9955HX, Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus | Core Ultra 7 251HX, Core Ultra 7 255HX, Core Ultra 9 275HX |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 16″ | 16″ |
| Resolution | 2560 × 1440 | 2560 × 1600 |
| Resolution class | QHD (1440p/1600p) | QHD (1440p/1600p) |
| Refresh rate | 300 Hz | 240 Hz |
| Panel type | Mini-LED | IPS |
| Brightness | — | 500 nits |
| Response time | — | 3 ms |
| DCI-P3 coverage | — | 100% |
| Pixel density | — | 189 ppi |
| Aspect ratio | 16:9 | 16:10 |
| G-Sync / FreeSync | — | No |
| Advanced Optimus | — | No |
| MUX switch | — | Yes |
| HDR | — | Yes |
| Touchscreen | — | No |
| Memory & storage | ||
| RAM (up to) | 32 GB | 32 GB |
| RAM (base) | 32 GB | 32 GB |
| RAM type | — | DDR5 |
| RAM speed | — | 6,400 MHz |
| Max. supported RAM | — | 128 GB |
| RAM slots | — | 2 |
| Upgradable RAM | — | Yes |
| SSD (up to) | 1,000 GB | 1,000 GB |
| SSD (base) | 1,000 GB | 1,000 GB |
| M.2 SSD slots | — | 2 |
| SSD interface | — | PCIe 5.0 x4 |
| Battery & power | ||
| Battery capacity | 99 Wh | 92 Wh |
| Power adapter | — | 330 W |
| USB-C charging (Power Delivery) | — | Yes |
| USB-C charging power | — | 140 W |
| Design & cooling | ||
| Weight | — | 2.45 kg |
| Thickness | — | 26 mm |
| Width | — | 363 mm |
| Depth | — | 270 mm |
| Body material | — | Plastic |
| Colours | Black | Black |
| Cooling fans | — | 2 |
| Vapor chamber cooling | — | No |
| Liquid metal (CPU) | — | No |
| Ports & wireless | ||
| Thunderbolt / USB4 | — | Thunderbolt 4 |
| Thunderbolt or USB4 | No | Yes |
| USB-C ports | — | 2 |
| USB-A ports | — | 3 |
| HDMI | — | HDMI 2.1 |
| HDMI 2.1 | No | Yes |
| (Mini) DisplayPort | — | No |
| Ethernet | — | 5 Gbit/s |
| Ethernet port | Yes | Yes |
| SD card reader | — | Yes |
| 3.5 mm audio jack | Yes | Yes |
| Wi-Fi standard | — | Wi-Fi 7 |
| Bluetooth | — | 5.4 |
| Keyboard & camera | ||
| Backlit keyboard | — | Yes |
| Numeric keypad | — | Yes |
| Key travel | — | 1.7 mm |
| Webcam | — | 1,080p |
| Fingerprint reader | — | No |
| Audio | ||
| Speakers | — | 2 speakers |
| Dolby Atmos | — | No |
Related comparisons
vs
Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025)vsXMG Neo 16 RTX 5070 Ti (2025)8.18.0vs
Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025)vsXMG Neo 16 RTX 5080 (2025)8.18.2vs
Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025)vsXMG Neo 16 RTX 5090 (2025)8.18.2vs
Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025)vsMedion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5080 (2025)
vsLenovo Legion Pro 5 Gen 10 RTX 5050 (2025)vsMedion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025)8.18.1
vsMSI Katana 15 RTX 5070 (2025)vsMedion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate RTX 5090 (2025)8.18.1