Gigabyte Aero 15 X9 Gaming Benchmarks – 2070 Max-Q Tested
To show you how well it runs and help you decide if it's worth it just quickly before we jump into the benchmark results. I'Ll cover off the specs in my unit there's an Intel i7 87, 58 CPU and NVIDIA r tx 2017 max q, graphics, I'll be comparing this to the 1070 max q in a future video, so get subscribed for that one for the memory. My unit came with 16 gig and single channel, but it's also available with two sticks and dual channel at 32 gig, so I've tested both configurations. So you can see the performance difference and decide which to get I've tested with gigabytes AI feature disabled, so it's performing just like a standard laptop but I'll investigate the performance difference with and without the AI enabled in a future video. I was running Windows 10, with the latest Nvidia drivers available from gigabyte, so let's see how well it runs for tonight was tested with the replay feature. The graphs can be a little confusing when there's so much data, so I'll spend some extra time covering this one. Basically, I've got the setting levels used along the side, so low, medium, high and epic settings. The blue bars represent dual channel memory, while the purple bars shows single channel memory. While this game was easily playable at all settings with single channel memory, dual channel was giving a 23 percent improvement to average FPS of epic settings over which was tested playing in the practice range and in terms of average FPS at epic settings.
That was only a seven percent improvement. However, this was much larger at lower settings. For example, with low settings dual channel was averaging 37 percent, higher average frame rates. But again the game was easily playable at max settings with AP configuration, battlefield, 5 was tested in campaign mode and not in multiplayer mode as it's easier to consistently reproduce the test run. I apologize for the rainbow colors, but there's not much. You can do when trying to display so much information. In this case, the purple and green bars were tested with r tx on and it wasn't really playable, with Ultra or high settings with averages in the mid 30 fps, medium and low were okay they're, both averaging above 60fps. In my personal opinion, Ultra settings with r tx off both looks better than lower settings with r tx on and performs better to shadow of the Tomb. Raider was tested with the built in benchmark, and this test was able to average above 60 FPS, even with the highest settings in single channel, but going to Jewel channel did improve average frame rate by 22 with up to a 43 improvements in with the lowest settings. Csgo was tested using the aletta chol benchmark, and this test saw a huge difference between single and dual channel memory. With all settings maxed out, there was a 42 percent improvement to average FPS with dual channel shown by the blue bar right at the top of the graph Rainbow six siege was tested with the built in benchmark and again there was a fare improvement with the dual Channel memory here, though, realistically very high frame rates from the ex mine in either case at Ultra settings, there was a 35 improvement to average FPS with a dual channel memory configuration and interestingly, the one percent low with dual channel was around the average FPS from single Channel Far Cry 5 was also tested with the built in benchmark, and the results were quite decent for this game.
Once again, a fair improvement from the dual channel configuration shown by the blue bars at Ultra settings. There was a 16 improvement to average FPS with the dual channel memory. Assassin'S creed Odyssey was another that was tested with the built in benchmark and, although I don't think this game typically needs a high frame rate to play at Ultra settings, dual channel was improving average performance by 32, with a smaller 15 improvement to 1 learn watchdogs. To is a demanding game, but even with single channel at Ultra settings, I found a playable. However, we can significantly improve the average framerate with dual channel at Ultra settings. There was a 38 improvement to average FPS and a much larger 54 percent improvement to 1. Lower darest recon is another demanding game and was tested using the built in benchmark at Ultra settings. There was less of a difference to average FPS, but a fairly large 32 percent improvement to 1 lower than the gap in average FPS between single and dual channel widens as we step down in settings. Presumably, as these are more CPU demanding – and this is where we tend to see more improvement from the dual channel setup – The Witcher 3 was tested with Nvidia. Hair works, disabled and 2 played fine x9, with either single or dual channel memory, even with ultra settings, although it was possible to improve average framerate by 22 percent with dual channel doom was tested using Vulcan, and this game generally runs quite well on anything.
It played very smoothly on either single or dual channel memory. However, the 1 lower of the dual channel configuration is around the average FPS for single channel a nice improvement. Pub G was tested using the replay feature and, like most other games tested, it was perfectly playable at max settings. Even with the single channel memory configuration. However, it was possible to boost average FPS at Ultra by 16, with dual channel memory in use. As we have seen, there is a fair difference between single channel and jool channel memory. It really makes me wonder why they don't sell it with 16 gig and dual channel rather than single channel. Only most of the difference in performance was due to that, rather than because one configuration had 16 gig, while the other had 32 gig. You can check the card in the top right corner for a video where I test single and dual channel memory with the same sizes. If you want to see the difference with the same size to memory, let me know what you guys thought about the performance from the error: 15 X, 9 down in the comments and don't forget to subscribe to the full review of the gigabyte error. 15 X. 9.