≈ $1,600
- SSD (up to) 8,000 GB vs 2,048 GB
- RAM (up to) 96 GB vs 64 GB
- Thunderbolt or USB4
- GPU compute (FP32) 16 TFLOPS vs 21.8 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 10,820 vs 13,677
- pan.tf
- Gaming laptops
- MSI Pulse 17 RTX 4070 (2023)
- Alternatives
Alternatives to MSI Pulse 17 RTX 4070 (2023)
10 gaming laptops at a similar price that compete with the Pulse 17 RTX 4070 (2023) — what each does better, what it gives up and how the price compares.
Alternatives to the Pulse 17 RTX 4070 (2023)
≈ $4,200
- SSD (up to) 16,000 GB vs 2,048 GB
- Resolution class QHD (1440p/1600p) vs Full HD (1080p/1200p)
- Thunderbolt or USB4
- RAM (up to) 32 GB vs 64 GB
- Weight 2.8 kg vs 2.7 kg
≈ $6,800
- Refresh rate 240 Hz vs 144 Hz
- GPU compute (FP32) 33.9 TFLOPS vs 21.8 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 21,090 vs 13,677
- Cinebench 2024 multi-core 754 vs 861
- SSD (up to) 2,000 GB vs 2,048 GB
- SSD (up to) 4,096 GB vs 2,048 GB
- Geekbench 6 multi-core 18,694 vs 12,873
- Cinebench 2024 multi-core 1,504 vs 861
- Weight 2.8 kg vs 2.7 kg
- RAM (base) 8 GB vs 16 GB
≈ $3,700
- Video memory 32 GB vs 8 GB
- Resolution class QHD (1440p/1600p) vs Full HD (1080p/1200p)
- GPU power (TGP) 145 W vs 140 W
- RAM (up to) 32 GB vs 64 GB
- SSD (up to) 1,000 GB vs 2,048 GB
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 20,417 vs 13,677
- Thunderbolt or USB4
- GPU compute (FP32) 31.2 TFLOPS vs 21.8 TFLOPS
- Weight 3 kg vs 2.7 kg
- Geekbench 6 multi-core 12,420 vs 12,873
- Thunderbolt or USB4
- Response time 7 ms vs 28 ms
- CPU cores 14 vs 10
- Weight 3 kg vs 2.7 kg
- Geekbench 6 multi-core 12,420 vs 12,873
- Thunderbolt or USB4
- Response time 7 ms vs 28 ms
- CPU cores 14 vs 10
- GPU compute (FP32) 16 TFLOPS vs 21.8 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 11,756 vs 13,677
- Thunderbolt or USB4
- Battery capacity 99 Wh vs 90 Wh
- Thickness 21.8 mm vs 27.2 mm
- GPU compute (FP32) 16 TFLOPS vs 21.8 TFLOPS
- Geekbench 6 multi-core 9,878 vs 12,873
- Thunderbolt or USB4
- Battery capacity 99 Wh vs 90 Wh
- Thickness 21.8 mm vs 27.2 mm
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 8,107 vs 13,677
- GPU compute (FP32) 13.4 TFLOPS vs 21.8 TFLOPS