Acer Predator Triton Neo 16
RTX 4070 · 110W · Core Ultra 9 185H
Head-to-head
Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 vs Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate
Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate is the faster machine, averaging 38% more frames across 10 games. Whether that's the one to buy depends on the £2,819 price gap.
Frame rates, side by side
| Game | Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 | Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 95 | 202 | -107 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80 | 172 | -92 |
| Dota 2 | 144 | 193 | -49 |
| Final Fantasy XV | 100 | 205 | -105 |
| GTA V | 166 | 185 | -19 |
| Space Marine 2 | 73 | 102 | -29 |
| Stalker 2 | 50 | 93 | -43 |
| Star Wars Outlaws | 41 | 73 | -32 |
| Until Dawn | 59 | 102 | -43 |
| X-Plane 11 | 89 | 114 | -25 |
1920×1080, High preset, upscaling off. Source: Notebookcheck.
Specifications
| Acer Predator Triton Neo 16 | Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | £2,065 | £4,884 |
| GPU | RTX 4070 | RTX 5090 |
| GPU power | 110W | - |
| CPU | Core Ultra 9 185H | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
| Memory | 32GB | 32GB |
| Display | 16in 3200x2000 | 16in 2560x1600 |
| Refresh | 165Hz | 300Hz |
| Weight | 2.032kg | 2.834kg |
| Score | 5.6 | 5.4 |
How these numbers were produced
Frame rates here are not measured by us, and we label how each one was arrived at. A figure marked measured comes from a published run on that exact machine. A figure marked representative is derived from the GPU and its power limit (TGP) and cross-referenced against published reviews - a sound estimate of what that configuration delivers, but not a measurement of that specific laptop. Unless stated otherwise, numbers are 1920x1080, High preset, upscaling off. Where a laptop ships in several power configurations we use the wattage of the exact SKU listed, because a 140W RTX 5070 and a 115W one are not the same product.
Read the full reviews
Medion Erazer Beast 16 X1 Ultimate
RTX 5090 · Core Ultra 9 275HX