Rods, while numerous, are interconnected so that receiving a photon on any one is perceptually indistinguishable from receiving a photon on any other in its group, increasing sensitivity at the cost of resolution. Without knowing how interconnected the predatory animal's rod cells are, or whether it has structures such as a tapetum lucidum, we cannot say if this animal's night vision is better, equivalent or worse than humans, who have approximately the same numbers of rod cells.
Cones are typically not interconnected, so that stimulation of each cone results in perception of a smaller point of light. Having far more cone cells than human eyes would mean that colour vision had significantly higher resolution than human eyes, quite possibly over a wider field of view than human eyes. Such an animal would likely not have a fovea, but would have vision of equal acuity across its entire field of view.
However such visual acuity would not be without cost. The optic nerves would be especially thick, reducing the potential for movement of the eyes within their sockets, though some animals such as owls already have such a limitation.
In addition, the processing requirements for such a large number of cones in the retina would mean that the animal's brain's visual cortex would necessarily be greatly enlarged. This would come at the cost of either less brain volume being available for other mental functions, making the animal more stupid and/or dextrous than other species with similar-sized brains, or at the cost of having a larger brain, and thus having a higher basal metabolism and a greater nutritional requirement for the proteins and lipids necessary for growing such a large brain.