≈ $5,400
- GPU compute (FP32) 37.9 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 24,671 vs 12,103
- Video memory 24 GB vs 8 GB
- RAM (up to) 64 GB vs 96 GB
- SSD (up to) 2,000 GB vs 4,096 GB
Alternatives to MSI Stealth 16 AI Studio RTX 4070 (2024)
10 thin gaming laptops at a similar price that compete with the Stealth 16 AI Studio RTX 4070 (2024) — what each does better, what it gives up and how the price compares.
Alternatives to the Stealth 16 AI Studio RTX 4070 (2024)
- GPU compute (FP32) 27.2 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 16,873 vs 12,103
- GPU shader cores 7,424 vs 4,608
- GPU compute (FP32) 31.2 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 19,786 vs 12,103
- GPU shader cores 9,728 vs 4,608
- GPU power (TGP) 140 W vs 105 W
- GPU compute (FP32) 21.8 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- Weight 1.78 kg vs 1.99 kg
- Battery capacity 68 Wh vs 100 Wh
- SSD (up to) 1,024 GB vs 4,096 GB
≈ $3,900
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 20,115 vs 12,103
- GPU compute (FP32) 26.8 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- Panel type OLED vs IPS
- RAM (up to) 32 GB vs 96 GB
- SSD (up to) 2,000 GB vs 4,096 GB
≈ $5,800
- GPU compute (FP32) 37.9 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 24,718 vs 12,103
- Video memory 24 GB vs 8 GB
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 240 Hz
- RAM (up to) 64 GB vs 96 GB
- Resolution class 3K (1800p/2000p) vs QHD (1440p/1600p)
- Panel type OLED vs IPS
- Geekbench 6 multi-core 14,591 vs 12,864
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 240 Hz
- RAM (up to) 64 GB vs 96 GB
- GPU compute (FP32) 31.2 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 19,706 vs 12,103
- GPU shader cores 9,728 vs 4,608
- RAM (up to) 32 GB vs 96 GB
- Battery capacity 90 Wh vs 100 Wh
- GPU compute (FP32) 24.7 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- GPU power (TGP) 115 W vs 105 W
- 3DMark Steel Nomad Light 15,335 vs 12,103
- RAM (up to) 32 GB vs 96 GB
- Battery capacity 90 Wh vs 100 Wh
≈ $5,000
- Resolution class 3K (1800p/2000p) vs QHD (1440p/1600p)
- Panel type OLED vs IPS
- GPU compute (FP32) 23.2 TFLOPS vs 18.2 TFLOPS
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 240 Hz
- SSD (up to) 1,000 GB vs 4,096 GB