Gigabyte recently launched their new Aero 15 X9 and Y9 laptops with Nvidia’s latest
RTX graphics, but how do these compare against the 2018 models? In this video I’m going
to compare the Aero 15X with 1070 Max-Q graphics with the newer Aero 15 X9 with 2070 Max-Q
graphics, we’ll look at differences in gaming performance, thermals, battery life, laptop
design and more to help you decide which to get.
First let’s cover the differences in specs between the two units I’m testing with.
Essentially they’re the same, apart from the graphics. Both have an Intel i7-8750H
CPU, a single 16GB stick of memory running at DDR4-2666, different brands but same speed
and timings. The new Aero’s have what Gigabyte are calling their “all Intel” solution,
so they’ve got upgraded Intel wireless cards and also Intel SSD’s which offer better
performance. They’ve got the same 94 watt hour battery, same 15.6” 1080p 144Hz screen,
and the internals look identical too, same heatpipes and two fans for cooling.
There are only slight differences between chassis design. On the lid we’ve got the
same Gigabyte logo in the center which lights up white with carbon fiber pattern down the
bottom. The interior looks the same too, I asked Gigabyte at CES if the same keyboard
was in use with the new model and was told that it was. The touchpads physically look
and feel the same, however out of the box the new Aero uses precision drivers, something
you’d have to manually change with the older model, so that’s a welcome change. There’s
a battery icon on the lower right corner of the older model, you can press this while
the laptop is off and it will show you the battery charge left using lights on the front,
however this feature is not present with the newer X9 model. Both laptops have the same
720p webcam down the bottom. This is what the camera on the Aero 15X looks like, and
this is what the camera looks like in the newer X9.
The I/O on the sides is a little different. On the left, the older Aero 15X has a physical
mini DisplayPort 1.4 output, while the newer 15 X9 has been updated to a USB 3.1 Type-C
port, which has DisplayPort 1.4 support, so a bit more versatile as you can use it for
both USB data transfer or a display output, you’ll just need a USB Type-C cable instead
of Mini DisplayPort cable. I/O on the right is exactly the same, no differences. The back
is also the same, and the front looks similar, again just the difference of no status LEDs
on the front of the new X9.
The screens are both the same 15.6” 1080p 144Hz LG panel, although both are available
with 4K panels which have better colour gamut, contrast ratio and brightness which would
be recommended if you’re using it for content creation rather than gaming. With the Aero
15x v8 the 1080p screen may be either AUO or LG, so you could get a different panel,
however now with the new v9 they’re only using the LG panel, so no surprises when you
buy. In terms of colour gamut I did get slightly better results with the newer X9, although
there is always variance between different panels, even in the same model.
Another difference is that the new Aero laptops have Gigabyte’s AI software installed. There
are two modes, AI Edge and AI Cloud. AI Edge processes the data locally to make the best
decisions in terms of what to change like fan speeds and power limits, while the AI
Cloud setting will send data to Microsoft and get the best settings for the workload
based on other user submitted data, so I’m expecting it to perform better. Otherwise
all other tests had the AI disabled unless stated otherwise. I did ask Gigabyte at CES
whether this software would be available with the older v8 model and was told that it would
not, however I have not attempted to install it to see what happens.
These are the results from my standard battery tests, I test with background apps disabled,
keyboard lighting off, and the screen at 50% brightness. In the test where I just leave
YouTube videos playing both lasted for the exact same amount of time. While gaming the
Older 15X lasted longer, which seems to indicate that the 1070 Max-Q graphics were using less
power, as the test was the same and both were capped to 30 FPS.
Next let’s get into some performance data. Both laptops were tested at the same time
side by side under the same conditions, so all data is fresh and up to date. For example,
while doing the temperature testing both laptops had the same tests going at the same time
for the same amount of time, therefore results are directly comparable.
Let’s start with the temperatures, both laptops were tested together with a room temperature
of 24 degrees Celsius as it’s summer here in Australia, and I think this information
is critical to understand before we get into the gaming results.
First these are the CPU only temperatures, these tests were done by running the Aida64
stress test only at the same time on both laptops, so no combined GPU load yet. As we
can see with the exact same load applied the temperatures on the newer Aero 15 X9, shown
by the blue bars, are hotter. I’m not exactly sure why this is, I don’t know if they use
different thermal paste, or if it was applied badly in my unit, because the heatpipes and
cooling otherwise appear to be the same in both models. I did ask some others with both
laptops about this, including Tim from hardware unboxed and Stephen from own or disown, and
it seems like they don’t have quite as big of a difference as me, so this may be an indication
of an abnormality with my specific unit, but I can’t be sure. I did notice that by default,
the X9 was overvolted by 0.01v for some reason which essentially sends it more power and
may make it run a little warmer, but not by this much.
These are the clock speeds from each laptop from these CPU only tests. At stock both were
power limit throttling at their default 52W TDP, however once undervolted both were able
to get about full boost speed from the i7-8750H. The X9 was almost there with this undervolt,
but still had intermittent power limit throttling which is why it was slightly behind, this
could have been removed either by applying a more aggressive undervolt, or boosting the
power limit, however while I found that possible it further increased temperatures. It’s
worth noting that the older Aero 15x was running with a 49 watt TDP once undervolted in this
test, while the X9 was capped at the 52 watt limit, so 3 watts higher. I found if I did
boost the power limit of the X9 to fully remove power limit throttling, even with this undervolt,
it would sit at 54 watts, so perhaps this TDP difference helps explains the hotter temperatures
with the X9. I’m not sure why the i7 in the X9 needs more power and runs hotter in
the same workload at the same clock speed, perhaps the i7 in my X9 simply lost the silicon
lottery and requires more power to run, resulting in more heat, but this still doesn’t explain
why other X9 laptops have that 0.01v overvolt applied.
Now let’s look at the graphics only results, these are the temperatures of both laptops
running the same Heaven benchmark with the same settings at maximum at the same time,
so no CPU stress tests running here. The 2070 Max-Q in the new X9 was consistently 10 degrees
Celsius hotter than the 1070 Max-Q in the 15X.
Likewise these are the clock speeds from those same GPU only tests, with the older 15X ahead.
It’s worth remembering that the clock speeds specified by Nvidia for 2070 laptops have
ranges that are wider than the 1070 Max-Q, so seeing lower clock speeds with the 2070
is possible purely from that difference.
At this point I’m not sure if the 2070 Max-Q is genuinely hotter than the 1070 Max-Q, or
if it’s some sort of issue with my X9, as we did also see a heat increase with the CPU
only stress test, when I’d expect those results to be closer together, so again not
sure if that points to some issue with the cooling.
Now let’s look at combined CPU and GPU workloads. As there’s a lot of data we’ll start with
the CPU results. These are the CPU temperatures while either playing Watch Dogs 2 for the
gaming results, or running the Aida64 stress test with the Heaven benchmark at the same
time for the stress test results, a worst case scenario. Just to clarify these are now
the results from running combined CPU and GPU workloads, both running together at the
same time, I’m just showing the CPU results first, before we saw either CPU or GPU running
at once. UV means a CPU undervolt, the same -0.12v was used as before, and the same 90MHz
overclock for the graphics was used on both laptops too. I was able to overclock the 1070
Max-Q a bit more, but decided to use the same 90MHz that was stable on my 2070 Max-Q to
try and keep the effects similar. In all tests we can see that the CPU is the same temperature,
except at idle where the older Aero was a little cooler. As the AI software is only
available for the new RTX laptops, the 15X will always be reported as 0.
These are the clock speeds of the CPU for the same tests just shown. In all tests we
can see that the older Aero 15x, shown by the green bars, was getting higher clock speeds
in this combined test. This is because the newer Aero 15 X9 was thermal throttling more,
so although both were hitting the same 90 degree Celsius cap the newer X9 wasn’t performing
as well as a result, possibly due to the increased heat being added into the system from the
RTX 2070 Max-Q graphics, but as we saw before the CPU is also hotter in my X9.
These are the GPU temperatures from the same tests, so still with a combined CPU and GPU
load. In all tests the 2070 Max-Q graphics in the newer Aero 15 X9, shown by the blue
bars, were running hotter when compared with the 1070 Max-Q in the older Aero 15X, shown
by the green bars. 86 degrees Celsius was the point where thermal throttling was hit
on the graphics, which was happening in the X9 unless the fan was set to full speed.
These are the clock speeds for the same tests just shown. Again in most cases the green
bars for the older Aero 15X were ahead as it was running cooler, however as discussed
earlier the 2070 Max-Q has lower clock speeds compared to the 1070 Max-Q, that’s just
how Nvidia are offering it though so not too surprising.
Overall the newer Aero 15 X9 is running hotter, resulting in lower CPU clock speeds. The lower
GPU clock speeds are likely a result of the 2070 Max-Q graphics just not being clocked
as high as the 1070 Max-Q, at least according to Nvidia’s specifications, however we did
see GPU throttling under combined CPU and GPU stress test on the X9, a worst case scenario,
but again there is extra heat from the CPU which I haven’t really been able to explain.
Unlike the older 15X, the newer X9 is also available with the overclockable i9-8950HK
CPU. The Y9 model is also available with 2080 Max-Q graphics, so there is more power available.
Given there was thermal throttling here with the i7 and 2070 Max-Q, that would definitely
be the case with the higher specced models too, however it’s worth remembering that
these tests are basically worst case scenarios, for the majority of everyday workloads I think
the higher specced options should still perform better.
With all of that in mind let’s take a look at the gaming results. All games were tested
with the fans at maximum speed and with dual channel memory for best performance, I wanted
to reduce the memory being a bottleneck. I used the same memory in each laptop, so there
was 32GB running at DDR4-2666 in dual channel. I’ll also just quickly note that I had memory
compatibility issues with both, as covered in my Aero upgrade video, so I’m thinking
the new one seems as picky as its predecessor.
I want to start out with Dota 2, as the results drive home an important point you need to
keep in mind when looking at the rest of the upcoming game results. I tested this with
the exact same replay, however I find the test to be CPU bound, so due to my X9 having
a higher degree of CPU throttling it’s actually coming out slightly behind when compared to
the older 15X in this test.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider on the other hand is an example where the difference in GPU
makes more of a difference, particularly at higher settings where we become less reliant
on the CPU. It was tested with the built in benchmark, and with the highest settings in
use the 2070 Max-Q was getting 18% higher average frame rates over the 1070 Max-Q.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode, as it was easier to consistently reproduce
the same test run on both laptops. I’ve also added the RTX results in green, which
I of course could only test on the RTX 2070 Max-Q, and I only found it playable at low
and medium settings. Outside of RTX though the 2070 Max-Q in the X9 was ahead in most
tests, at ultra settings it was getting 9% higher average FPS compared to the 1070 Max-Q
in the 15X.
Far Cry 5 was also tested using the built in benchmark, and there’s much less of a
difference between the two here. At ultra settings the 2070 Max-Q was getting just 3%
higher average FPS, while the 1% lows were actually lower on the X9, likely due to that
CPU throttling. I tend to find lower CPU performance reduces frame times and causes this result,
so it makes sense here.
The Witcher 3 was tested with Hairworks disabled and saw a nice boost in performance with the
2070 Max-Q. At ultra settings it was getting a massive 32% higher average FPS, the biggest
improvement out of all 14 games tested. There was a decent improvement to 1% lows in this
title too, with an 18% improvement at ultra settings.
Ghost Recon is a resource intensive game and was tested with the built in benchmark. In
these tests the 2070 Max-Q was always ahead in terms of average FPS, however the gap widens
at higher setting levels as we become more GPU bound. At ultra settings the 2070 Max-Q
was getting 13% higher average FPS, and this was the only setting where the 1% low was
higher.
Watch Dogs 2 is another resource intensive game that was basically always maxing out
the CPU, which is why I think we’re seeing worse results from the 2070 Max-Q in this
game at all settings. At ultra settings the 1070 Max-Q was getting 2% higher average FPS
than the 2070 Max-Q, while at low settings this increases to the 1070 Max-Q scoring 19%
higher average FPS.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested using the built in benchmark, and the 1070 Max-Q
was ahead in all tests except at ultra settings, where the 2070 Max-Q came out 8% ahead in
terms of average FPS, however the X9 was always slightly behind when it came to 1% low results,
again most likely due to the heavier CPU throttling noted earlier.
DOOM was tested using Vulkan, and in this game the 2070 Max-Q was ahead in the majority
of tests, only coming out slightly behind at low settings. At ultra settings the X9
was getting 7% higher average FPS and a 8% higher 1% low.
Fortnite was tested with the replay feature, so the exact same replay was used on both
laptops. This was another game where the X9’s 2070 Max-Q was only coming out ahead in terms
of average FPS at max settings, in this case at epic it was 11% ahead of the 1070 Max-Q
in the 15X.
CS:GO was tested with the Ulletical FPS benchmark, and I have noticed that this is another test
that seems to favour CPU power, which I believe explains why the older 1070 Max-Q is so far
ahead in average frame rate. With all settings at maximum the 1070 Max-Q was getting 20%
higher average FPS over the 2070 Max-Q.
Overwatch was tested in the practice range as it allowed me to perform the exact same
test run on both laptops. In all tests the 2070 Max-Q was coming out ahead here, both
for average frame rate and 1% low. At epic settings the 2070 Max-Q in the X9 was getting
a 10% higher average FPS, and an 8% improvement to 1% low.
PUBG was tested using the exact same replay on both laptops, and the 2070 Max-Q was behind
in almost all tests, with the exception being ultra settings where it was coming out 6%
ahead in terms of average FPS.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the built in benchmark, and there were pretty big improvements
in this test across the board with the X9. I suspect this is more due to the RTX turing
architecture though, as in other videos where I’ve compared GTX against RTX graphics,
this game usually sees the largest improvement on the RTX option. With ultra settings the
2070 Max-Q was scoring 22% higher average FPS and 1% low.
I’ve also tested 3DMark Firestrike, TimeSpy and VRMark, both with dual channel memory
configurations, and in most cases the 2070 max-q in the X9 was ahead in these tests.
This is a summary of all 14 games tested at 1080p with the highest setting level in use,
I’ve used the highest setting level, because as we saw in general there was the most improvement
with the 2070 Max-Q there as we become less CPU bound. On average across all games the
2070 Max-Q was performing 8.3% higher in average frame rate compared to the 1070 Max-Q, and
if we remove that extreme CS:GO result it’s 10.2% better, but as we can see it really
depends on the game.
The higher degree of CPU throttling in my X9 seemed to cause some performance loss,
as was made obvious in games where CPU played a more important role, or at lower settings
where the graphics are utilized less. I think this shows that if the CPU on the newer X9
could be run cooler then it should be possible to improve performance further. Modifications
such as undervolting would help, however as we also saw earlier in the temperature testing
it did not entirely remove CPU throttling from the equation in a combined CPU and GPU
workload. Due to the CPU throttling differences, you should not use the data presented here
as a proper comparison between 1070 Max-Q and 2070 Max-Q graphics, it should only be
used as a way of comparing the Aero 15X against the newer Aero 15 X9, and even then the CPU
only temperatures are raising suspicion, I don’t know if the X9 results are unique
to my unit or if it’s really that much hotter for some reason.
Outside of gaming I mostly use my personal Aero 15x for editing videos while I’m travelling,
at CES I made about 13 4K videos for the channel for example. I did a test export of one of
my recent videos using CUDA acceleration, and the GPU difference didn’t really help,
the 15X still completed the task faster as I find the videos I personally create to rely
more on the CPU, so that extra CPU throttling in the X9 is making that process slower.
For updated pricing check the links in the description, as prices will change over time.
At the time of recording, the new Aero 15 X9 with 2070 Max-Q graphics can be picked
up for $2400 USD, while the slightly older Aero 15X with 1070 Max-Q graphics goes for
$200 less at $2200 USD. As the 15X has been around for a bit now you might also be able
to find a good second hand deal.
So basically there’s a 9% price difference for the new Aero 15 X9, is it worth it? I
think it could be, let me explain. Purely in terms of game performance, I was seeing
about an 8% overall improvement to average FPS in the 14 games I tested, although it
was over 10% removing CS:GO from the equation. Paying 9% more for that much extra performance
in games sounds reasonable to me if you want it. As we’ve seen the X9 was running hotter,
and while the 2070 Max-Q graphics were about 10 degrees Celsius hotter compared to the
1070 Max-Q, I also saw the CPU only test run hotter on the X9, and given both laptops have
the same cooling solution I’m not sure if there’s a thermal paste difference or if
otherwise some problem specific to my unit, so you’ll have to take my temperature results
with a grain of salt.
Outside of gaming with the newer X9 you also get the better Intel WiFi card, which is up
to twice as fast, while the Intel SSD is also faster but also 1TB, so double the size of
the 512GB one in the older Aero 15X.
So which laptop would you guys pick? The older Aero 15X, or newer Aero 15 X9? Overall the
X9 has some nice incremental improvements, such as precision touchpad drivers, faster
WiFi and larger SSD, but otherwise for the most part the design of the laptop is the
same. The major difference is of course Nvidia’s latest RTX graphics which are available in
the newer models, with up to i9 CPUs, although as we saw the newer model was running hotter.
Despite this though, on average in the games I’ve tested there was a fair performance
boost with the 2070 Max-Q graphics which may make it a worthy option if you’re looking
at buying it for gaming. Outside of gaming if you don’t need RTX graphics it may make
more sense to get the older 15X, unless you really want those new improvements for the
$200, either way I’m still very happy with my 15X and don’t need the newer X9.
Let me know which one you’d go for and why down in the comments, and if you’re new
here get subscribed for future tech videos like this one.