The Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti is one of the best gaming graphics cards currently available,
but which one should you pick? In this video I’ll be comparing the MSI Gaming X Trio
against the flashy option from Aorus to see which one is deserving of your hard earned
money.
Let’s quickly take a look at how these two RTX 2080 Ti graphics cards differ in terms
of specs. They’re basically the same just looking at the spec sheets, with the only
difference being that the MSI card has a 60MHz higher boost clock speed. There is now an
extreme version of the Aorus card, which is clocked 15MHz higher than MSI’s Gaming X
Trio, and I’d expect closer performance there, unfortunately that one didn’t exist
back when I bought my regular Aorus 2080 Ti so we’re not looking at that one here.
Both cards have metal backplates with their respective logos, although the I/O is a little
different, with the Aorus card having 2 extra DisplayPort outputs. On the front both have
three fans, and on top the MSI card has an additional 6 pin power connector. In terms
of size the MSI card is larger in every dimension, and just holding them the heatsink looked
larger and felt heavier with the Gaming X Trio, but we’ll check out thermals later
on.
The system that I’m testing with has an Intel i7-8700K CPU in an MSI Z390 Gaming Pro
Carbon motherboard at stock along with 16GB of T-Force Night Hawk CL16 memory from Team
Group running at DDR4-3200 in dual channel. Check the links in the description for details
on all of the components as well as for up to date pricing. The same Windows version
and Nvidia drivers were used for the testing as both were tested on the same day, so let’s
get into the gaming benchmarks now and afterwards we’ll check out thermals, fan noise, clock
speeds and power draw.
Let’s start out with Shadow of the Tomb Raider, I’ve tested with the built in benchmark
using high settings. At 1080p there was just a one frame difference, margin of error realistically,
then at higher resolutions MSI’s Gaming X Trio appeared to come out ahead, 1.7% higher
FPS at 1440p increasing further to 4.2% higher at 4K, though I’ll note right now this was
the largest difference out of all 10 games tested at 4K.
Watch Dogs 2 is a resource intensive game, but with a solid 30 FPS it runs perfectly
fine in my opinion, so either were running well even at 4K with very high settings, just
below the magic 60 FPS sweet spot. Similar results are seen in this game too, with the
Aorus card out in front at 1080p, but then at 1440p the MSI card was 2.4% ahead, and
1.4% ahead at 4K, although the MSI card was ahead at all resolutions in terms of 1% low.
Far Cry 5 was tested with the built in benchmark, and at 1080p there was basically no difference
in terms of average frame rate, with the 1% low from the MSI card just slightly in front.
It was a similar story at 1440p, while at 4K the MSI card was now 3.9% ahead in terms
of average FPS, with a larger 7.2% increase seen to 1% low.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode rather than multiplayer, as it’s easier
to consistently reproduce the same test run, which is ideal for a comparison like this.
Again basically the same results, no major differences at the lower resolutions, though
the MSI card does edge out 1.1% ahead at 1440p then further to 2.5% at 4K. Turning on RTX
seems to be the great equalizer, as the average frame rates are all pushed extremely close
together with no practical differences between the two, though technically in terms of raw
data the MSI card is just in front again at 1440p and 4K. I wouldn’t take too much away
from these close results though, again margin of error territory realistically, however
the results are mimicking the trends we’ve seen in other games thus far.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the built in benchmark using high settings.
In this test the Aorus card was once more slightly in front at 1080p with 5% higher
1% lows, while both were basically dead even at 1440p, and then finally at 4K the MSI card
barely manages to edge slightly in front with a 0.7% improvement to average FPS, though
a larger 3% improvement to 1% low.
Now for some less GPU heavy games, overwatch was tested in the practice range, as again
it allows me to perform the exact same test run which is ideal for a comparison, no bots
or other players to change results. This game has a 300 FPS frame cap which was being hit
by both at 1080p, however the 1% low from the MSI card was 4.5% higher here, though
honestly at these frame rates you won’t be noticing the difference. At 1440p the average
frame rates are still basically dead on, this time with the Aorus 5% ahead in the 1% low,
while finally at 4K, like the other tests previously, the MSI card is out in front.
PUBG was tested using the replay feature, and I’ve used the exact same replay file
with each graphics card, so as apples to apples as you can get in this game. At 1080p and
1440p the Aorus card was coming out ahead in both average FPS and 1% low, while at 4K
once more the MSI card starts pulling out ahead.
Fortnite was also tested with the replay feature using the exact same replay file with each
graphics card, and while not exactly a graphically intensive game when I don’t include it people
seem to freak out, so here you are. At 4K and 1440p the average frame rates are extremely
close together, with the MSI card slightly ahead at 1080p, though lower for the 1% lows,
when it comes down to it you’re honestly not going to be able to tell the difference
practically, same as the other games tested so far.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the built in benchmark using the built in presets, so
50% render scale and TAA which is automatically set, so high frame rates as a result. Once
more the Aorus card was ahead at 1080p and 1440p resolutions, with the MSI card slightly
ahead when it comes to 4K.
CS:GO was tested with the ulletical FPS benchmark, and again like many other games tested here
the Aorus card was ahead at 1080p and 1440p, with the MSI card coming out 1.6% faster at
4K in terms of average frame rate.
In terms of overall differences, over all tests with a 1080p resolution on average the
Aorus 2080 Ti was coming out ahead of MSI’s Gaming X Trio, which was almost 1% behind
in average frame rate, with only Fortnite performing better with MSI’s card.
At 1440p with the same tests the results are much more mixed, on average over all tests
there’s basically no difference, however it comes down to the specific game, where
I was seeing more of a difference between the two here when compared against the 1080p
results just shown.
Finally at 4K where we’re in theory the least CPU bound, MSI’s Gaming X Trio was
coming out on top in every single test, most likely due to that higher boost clock speed
mentioned earlier, resulting in 2% higher average FPS on average out of all of the games
that were tested.
As expected there’s no major practical difference between these two 2080 Ti’s, I doubt you’d
be noticing a difference in terms of performance going with one over the other, so let’s
take a look at some other factors to see if there are any other notable differences.
Here’s what we’re looking at in terms of temperature differences with the Heaven
benchmark running on a long loop. I’ll also note that this was tested a few months ago
back when it was summer here in Australia, so even with the AC on there was a warm 26
degree Celsius ambient room temperature, expect lower temperatures to what I’m showing in
cooler environments. In all cases the Aorus card was running warmer than MSI’s Gaming
X Trio, something others have noted in other reviews, including Steve from Hardware Unboxed
who also noted it was warmer than the Gaming X Trio as well, granted he tested the slightly
higher tier Extreme model.
Higher temperatures generally mean louder fans to keep things cool, so let’s have
a listen to what we’re dealing with when it comes to total system fan noise. Keep in
mind that my test system has 7 case fans in total, so we’re not just hearing the GPU.
With the heaven benchmark running, the Aorus card was slightly louder at stock, however
if we manually max out the fans the MSI card is capable of getting louder at full speed.
Neither card needed to get anywhere near full speed under this test though, even in my warm
room, and both don’t even spin the fans until they start heating up so will run silent.
Both had a tiny bit of coil whine, though I couldn’t notice it once the fans kicked
in.
While I was a little sad that I bought the Aorus card back before there were reviews
of it only to find out that it ran hotter, I have to admit the lighting effects you can
get with the fan are quite nice and that’s honestly what drew me to it. I make a lot
of videos on the channel, so having something that looks nice in testing was a factor for
me there, it just makes a nice show piece. Anyway both cards both have RGB lighting if
that’s your thing.
Here’s what we’re looking at in terms of average clock speeds with the same Heaven
benchmark running on a loop. At stock both are very close together in this test in terms
of clock speed, however when manually overclocked we’re seeing slightly higher with the MSI
Gaming X Trio, as I was able to run with an extra 130MHz to the GPU core, while the Aorus
only seemed to take 70MHz extra, though these were by no means properly tuned overclocks.
I’ve measured total system power draw from the wall, again with just the Heaven benchmark
running, and while not the best test it does perform the same workload on each card, and
the MSI one was consistently using more power. This seems to make sense given that it has
a higher boost clock speed out of the box, although as just shown we were looking at
very similar clock speeds in this particular test. Looking back on the data now it would
have been interesting to test power draw in games at different resolutions to see if that
would have changed to match the differences we saw in game performance earlier.
I’m not going to look at overclocking performance differences here, as results aren’t guaranteed
and depend on the silicon lottery, if you’re after my results you can check my full reviews
linked in the video description.
Now for the final difference, the price. I suggest checking updated prices using the
links in the description, as prices will change over time. At the time of recording, MSI’s
Gaming X Trio is $1350 USD while the Aorus card is $1280, so $70 extra for MSI’s offering,
which as we saw equated to a 2% improvement at 4K where we’re more GPU bound for 5.4%
more dollars.
Here in Australia we’re looking at $2,100 AUD for MSI’s Gaming X Trio graphics card,
while the Aorus 2080 Ti is $100 AUD less at $2,000, however Aorus also have an Extreme
version of the card for $100 more, making it the same as MSI’s option, and this one
just has a 15MHz higher boost clock over the Gaming X Trio, but I’d expect you would
be able to overclock the cheaper one to that level without too much issue.
In terms of game performance, as we saw it didn’t really matter too much in the end,
at least in terms of being able to practically tell the difference, especially when you consider
the fact that you’ll be able to overclock both cards further anyway to boost performance,
though results there will vary. When it comes down to it, the MSI card does have a slightly
higher boost clock speed out of the box and as a result seems to draw more power. Despite
this though, it does however run cooler than the Aorus card as it’s physically larger
with a bigger heatsink, though in my personal opinion the lighting effects on the Aorus
card really do make it a great show piece, and for $70 USD less I think it’s a fine
option, though at that point it sort of comes down to personal preference. If I was buying
again today at this price range I think I’d just pay the extra and go for the Gaming X
Trio though, as it tends to perform better in GPU bound scenarios while running cooler.
Let me know which card you’d pick down in the comments, the flashy Aorus 2080 Ti or
the MSI Gaming X Trio, and don’t forget to subscribe for more comparisons and future
tech videos like this one.