Notebookcheck

Aorus X9 DT (i9-8950HK, GTX 1080, FHD) Laptop Review

Florian Glaser, 👁 Florian Glaser, Stefanie Voigt (translated by Martin Jungowski), 04/17/2018

Coffee Lake on speed. Gigabyte's Aorus X9 DT is a 17-inch high-end notebook with top-of-the-line hardware and an overclockable processor that should run every game smoothly on its FHD display. Let us compare the desktop replacement to other GTX 1080 laptops - which one will prevail?

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Aorus X9 DT

While the recently reviewed Aero 15X is aimed primarily at gamers who are frequently out and about, the much bigger and heavier Aorus X9 is definitely a stationary desktop-replacement. The GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q has been replaced with Nvidia’s fastest Pascal GPU: a GeForce GTX 1080 with 8 GB of GDDR5X VRAM.

The CPU also differs from the Aero 15X. Intel’s Core i9-8950HK is currently the fastest available mobile CPU and much faster in some respects than the Core i7-8750H. Our review unit was also equipped with 32 GB of DDR4 RAM (2x 16 GB), two storage devices (1 TB SSD and a 1 TB HDD), and an FHD IPS display. In this particular configuration, this notebook currently sells for slightly below $4,000 plus tax in the United States.

Aorus X9 DT (X9 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop) - 8192 MB, Core: 1632 MHz, Memory: 2500 MHz, GDDR5X, ForceWare 391.34
Memory
32768 MB 
, 2x 16 GB SO-DIMM DDR4-2666, Dual Channel, 2 out of 4 slots free, max. 64 GB
Display
17.3 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 127 PPI, AUO B173HAN03.0 (AUO309D), IPS, Full-HD, 144 Hz, G-Sync, X-Rite Pantone, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM370
Storage
Transcend TS1TMTE850,  GB 
, 1 TB NVMe-SSD + HGST Travelstar 7K1000 HTS721010A9E630, 1 TB HDD, 7200 rpm. Available slots: 2x M.2 Type 2280 & 1x 2,5 inch
Soundcard
Realtek ALC1220 @ Intel Cannon Lake PCH
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 4 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 Thunderbolt, 1 HDMI, 2 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: headphones, microphone, Card Reader: SD,SDHC,SDXC, Brightness Sensor
Networking
Killer E2500 Gigabit Ethernet Controller (10/100/1000MBit), Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter (b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.1
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 30 x 428 x 314 ( = 1.18 x 16.85 x 12.36 in)
Battery
94.24 Wh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Speakers: 2.2, Keyboard: mechanic, Chiclet, RGB, Keyboard Light: yes, 330 W charger, warranty card, printed instructions, Adobe Reader XI, various tools from the manufactir, Killer Perferrmance Suite, MS Office 365 Trial, XSplit Gamecaster Trial, XSplit Broadcaster Trial, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
3.66 kg ( = 129.1 oz / 8.07 pounds), Power Supply: 1.188 kg ( = 41.91 oz / 2.62 pounds)
Price
3999 EUR
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Updates

Although the case seems identical, the notebook differs significantly from its lookalike predecessor. Previously equipped with a quad-core CPU the 2018 model now features a six-core processor for additional multi-thread performance. On the other hand, 3D performance has decreased on average as Gigabyte bid farewell to the SLI setup due to its various downsides such as enormous power consumption, micro-stuttering, dependence on driver support, etc. Instead, the X9 features a single GPU, which truth be told we are not particularly saddened by.

Aorus X9 DT
Aorus X9 DT
Aorus X9 DT
Aorus X9 DT

Lower resolution (FHD instead of QHD) aside, the display has been improved significantly. Instead of a 120 Hz TN panel with poor viewing angles this year’s model features a 144 Hz IPS panel with G-Sync support.

The other updates are rather discreet. For example, Gigabyte claims to have updated the keyboard. Other upgrades include faster RAM (2,666 vs. 2,400 MHz) and support for Dolby Atmos. And last but not least, connectivity has been slightly upgraded with more ports supporting the faster USB 3.1 Gen 2 standard now.

Command & Control
Command & Control
Deep Control
Deep Control
Fusion
Fusion
Driver Update
Driver Update

Tuning enthusiasts will be delighted to hear that the Command & Control tool is still present and once again offers various monitoring possibilities as well as access to low-level system settings. Most importantly, these are fan control and overclocking features. At the request of Gigabyte, we ran our benchmarks and tests with fan control set to “Gaming” and the OC level set to 2 and 3 for GPU and CPU, respectively.

Size Comparison

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Aorus X9 DT
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
202 MB/s ∼100%
Aorus X9
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
199 MB/s ∼99% -1%
Asus G703
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
182 MB/s ∼90% -10%
Average of class Gaming
  (11.7 - 202, n=205)
90.1 MB/s ∼45% -55%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
83 MB/s ∼41% -59%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
79 MB/s ∼39% -61%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
73.04 MB/s ∼36% -64%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Aorus X9 DT
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
241 MB/s ∼100%
Aorus X9
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
240 MB/s ∼100% 0%
Asus G703
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
240 MB/s ∼100% 0%
Average of class Gaming
  (13.4 - 257, n=203)
109 MB/s ∼45% -55%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
89 MB/s ∼37% -63%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
88 MB/s ∼37% -63%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
87.35 MB/s ∼36% -64%
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
700 MBit/s ∼100% +10%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
681 MBit/s ∼97% +7%
Asus G703
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
681 MBit/s ∼97% +7%
Aorus X9 DT
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
639 MBit/s ∼91%
Average of class Gaming
  (141 - 702, n=179)
596 MBit/s ∼85% -7%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Realtek 8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
593 MBit/s ∼85% -7%
Aorus X9
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
396 MBit/s ∼57% -38%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
628 MBit/s ∼100% +4%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Realtek 8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
604 MBit/s ∼96% 0%
Aorus X9 DT
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
601 MBit/s ∼96%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
558 MBit/s ∼89% -7%
Aorus X9
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
536 MBit/s ∼85% -11%
Average of class Gaming
  (213 - 697, n=179)
536 MBit/s ∼85% -11%
Asus G703
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
506 MBit/s ∼81% -16%

Display

One of the X9 DT’s highlights is certainly its brand-new 144 Hz display with support for G-Sync. Its smoothness has the potential to render gamers speechless. Unfortunately, we cannot attest to Gigabyte’s 7 ms response time claims. That said, the screen still managed a respectable 12 ms for black to white and 18 ms for gray to gray.

263
cd/m²
271
cd/m²
254
cd/m²
277
cd/m²
280
cd/m²
266
cd/m²
255
cd/m²
252
cd/m²
241
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 280 cd/m² Average: 262.1 cd/m² Minimum: 12 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 280 cd/m²
Contrast: 1273:1 (Black: 0.22 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.78 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 0.74 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
92% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.43
Aorus X9 DT
AUO B173HAN03.0 (AUO309D), IPS, 1920x1080
Aorus X9
AUO B173QTN01.3 (AUO1396), TN, 2560x1440
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
AU Optronics B173HW01, IPS, 1920x1080
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
LP173WF4-SPF5 (LGD056D), IPS, 1920x1080
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
CMN N173HHE-G32 (CMN1747), TN LED, 1920x1080
Asus G703
AUO B173HAN03.0 (AUO309D), IPS, 1920x1080
Response Times
14%
-151%
-139%
40%
6%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
18.4 (9.2, 9.2)
21.6 (11.6, 10)
-17%
44 (22, 22)
-139%
45 (18, 27)
-145%
11.6 (6.4, 5.2)
37%
17.6 (8.4, 9.2)
4%
Response Time Black / White *
12 (6.8, 5.2)
6.6 (4.6, 2)
45%
31.6 (16, 15.6)
-163%
28 (6, 22)
-133%
6.8 (4.8, 2)
43%
11.2 (6, 5.2)
7%
PWM Frequency
25000 (15)
Screen
-119%
-40%
-70%
3%
-74%
Brightness middle
280
346
24%
343
23%
380
36%
274
-2%
274
-2%
Brightness
262
326
24%
332
27%
362
38%
262
0%
268
2%
Brightness Distribution
86
88
2%
83
-3%
91
6%
87
1%
80
-7%
Black Level *
0.22
0.54
-145%
0.35
-59%
0.37
-68%
0.26
-18%
0.29
-32%
Contrast
1273
641
-50%
980
-23%
1027
-19%
1054
-17%
945
-26%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.78
5.98
-236%
3.35
-88%
4.12
-131%
1.36
24%
3.99
-124%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
3.91
9.77
-150%
5.62
-44%
8.19
-109%
4.1
-5%
7.33
-87%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
0.74
5.47
-639%
2.4
-224%
3.95
-434%
0.64
14%
4.14
-459%
Gamma
2.43 91%
2.21 100%
2.35 94%
2.47 89%
2.19 100%
2.58 85%
CCT
6494 100%
7721 84%
6495 100%
6539 99%
6551 99%
7352 88%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
60
55
-8%
57
-5%
55
-8%
77
28%
60
0%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
92
84
-9%
88
-4%
84
-9%
100
9%
92
0%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
2.5
1.79
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-53% / -97%
-96% / -59%
-105% / -81%
22% / 10%
-34% / -60%

* ... smaller is better

The X-Rite Pantone certification is also worth mentioning. Color deviations are minor in the “Native Color” mode already and the X-Rite certification is going to play an important role for users with serious photo and video editing ambitions.

CalMAN: Grayscale (X-Rite Pantone)
CalMAN: Grayscale (X-Rite Pantone)
CalMAN: Saturation Sweeps (X-Rite Pantone)
CalMAN: Saturation Sweeps (X-Rite Pantone)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (X-Rite Pantone)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (X-Rite Pantone)
Aorus X9 DT vs. sRGB (92 %)
Aorus X9 DT vs. sRGB (92 %)
CalMAN: Grayscale (Native Color)
CalMAN: Grayscale (Native Color)
CalMAN: Saturation Sweeps (Native Color)
CalMAN: Saturation Sweeps (Native Color)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (Native Color)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (Native Color)
Aorus X9 DT vs. AdobeRGB (60%)
Aorus X9 DT vs. AdobeRGB (60%)

Its rather poor maximum brightness (262 nits) aside, the IPS display did pretty well by and large, with its black level of 0.22 nits, a contrast ratio of 1,200:1, and wide viewing angles. We found color space coverage to be at 92% sRGB and 60% AdobeRGB, which is acceptable for a gaming notebook.

subpixel geometry
subpixel geometry
viewing angles
viewing angles

Overall brightness distribution was decent, and we did not notice any pronounced clouding. All things considered, the only display on a par with the Aorus X9 DT was the MSI GT75VR’s. The predecessor’s panel was significantly worse, save for its higher maximum brightness.

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
12 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6.8 ms rise
↘ 5.2 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
18.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9.2 ms rise
↘ 9.2 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8931 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Performance

Let's start with some screenshots.

CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
HWiNFO
HWiNFO
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
latencies
latencies

Processor

As already mentioned the CPU can be overclocked with the included Command & Control application. However, we suggest you take these claims with a grain of salt. The only difference between normal operation and OC level 3 was the Core i9-8950HK's consistent maximum turbo speed of 4.3 GHz (4.0 GHz on normal, 4.1 GHz on OC level 1, 4.2 GHz on OC level 2).

single-core rendering
single-core rendering
multi-core rendering
multi-core rendering
GPU load
GPU load

All previously reviewed Coffee Lake systems suffered from a massive drop in maximum turbo boost after a few seconds of sustained load. Even the Core i7-8750H’s clock frequency dropped by several hundred MHz (see for example the Aero 15X or the Asus ROG Zephyrus M GM501). This means that maximum performance was lower than it could have been in theory. On the contrary, the Aorus X9 DT was the first hexa-core CPU that did not show this behavior and thus was capable of fully utilizing its turbo-boost potential.

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus G703
Intel Core i7-7820HK
185 Points ∼100% 0%
Aorus X9 DT
Intel Core i9-8950HK
185 Points ∼100%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
Intel Core i7-7820HK
184 Points ∼99% -1%
Aorus X9
Intel Core i7-7820HK
174 Points ∼94% -6%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Intel Core i7-7820HK
162 Points ∼88% -12%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
Intel Core i7-7820HK
160 Points ∼86% -14%
Average of class Gaming
  (79 - 209, n=419)
152 Points ∼82% -18%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Aorus X9 DT
Intel Core i9-8950HK
1388 Points ∼100%
Asus G703
Intel Core i7-7820HK
932 Points ∼67% -33%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
Intel Core i7-7820HK
874 Points ∼63% -37%
Aorus X9
Intel Core i7-7820HK
837 Points ∼60% -40%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Intel Core i7-7820HK
770 Points ∼55% -45%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
Intel Core i7-7820HK
758 Points ∼55% -45%
Average of class Gaming
  (196 - 1865, n=420)
748 Points ∼54% -46%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Aorus X9 DT
Intel Core i9-8950HK
2.1 Points ∼100%
Asus G703
Intel Core i7-7820HK
2.09 Points ∼100% 0%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
Intel Core i7-7820HK
2.08 Points ∼99% -1%
Aorus X9
Intel Core i7-7820HK
1.97 Points ∼94% -6%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Intel Core i7-7820HK
1.84 Points ∼88% -12%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
Intel Core i7-7820HK
1.81 Points ∼86% -14%
Average of class Gaming
  (0.71 - 2.38, n=408)
1.68 Points ∼80% -20%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Aorus X9 DT
Intel Core i9-8950HK
15.13 Points ∼100%
Asus G703
Intel Core i7-7820HK
10.33 Points ∼68% -32%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
Intel Core i7-7820HK
9.55 Points ∼63% -37%
Aorus X9
Intel Core i7-7820HK
9.19 Points ∼61% -39%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Intel Core i7-7820HK
8.47 Points ∼56% -44%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
Intel Core i7-7820HK
8.34 Points ∼55% -45%
Average of class Gaming
  (1.13 - 21.2, n=509)
7.28 Points ∼48% -52%

Accordingly, our review unit practically wiped the floor with its Kaby Lake based quad-core competitors. Even the i7-7820HK-equipped overclocked to 4.3 GHz laptops Asus ROG Chimera G703 and Acer Predator 17 X did not stand a chance against the X9 DT and were between 50 and 60% slower in Cinebench R15’s multi-thread benchmark.

010203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024025026027028029030031032033034035036037038039040041042043044045046047048049050051052053054055056057058059060061062063064065066067068069070071072073074075076077078079080081082083084085086087088089090091092093094095096097098099010001010102010301040105010601070108010901100111011201130114011501160117011801190120012101220123012401250126012701280129013001310132013301340135013601370138013901400Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
6978
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
39380
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
2.1 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
15.13 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
185 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1388 Points
Help

System Performance

General system performance was top notch as well: 6,387 points in PC Mark 10 is impressive and deserving of first place among our test group. The fastest competitor was 14% slower (X9 2017), the slowest a whopping 27% (Asus G703). Thanks to the fast SSD, Windows 10 felt snappy with incredibly fast boot times and short application launch times.

PCMark 10 - Score
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK, Transcend TS1TMTE850
6387 Points ∼100%
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
5611 Points ∼88% -12%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5290 Points ∼83% -17%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 2x Samsung SM961 MZVPW256HEGL NVMe (RAID 0)
5211 Points ∼82% -18%
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 2x Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP NVMe (RAID 0)
5035 Points ∼79% -21%
Average of class Gaming
  (2603 - 6959, n=119)
4945 Points ∼77% -23%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
6123 Points ∼100% +1%
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK, Transcend TS1TMTE850
6055 Points ∼99%
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 2x Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP NVMe (RAID 0)
6016 Points ∼98% -1%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5450 Points ∼89% -10%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 2x Samsung SM961 MZVPW256HEGL NVMe (RAID 0)
5444 Points ∼89% -10%
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
5240 Points ∼86% -13%
Average of class Gaming
  (2484 - 6515, n=314)
4926 Points ∼80% -19%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
5975 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 2x Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP NVMe (RAID 0)
5944 Points ∼99% +1%
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK, Transcend TS1TMTE850
5859 Points ∼98%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 2x Samsung SM961 MZVPW256HEGL NVMe (RAID 0)
5237 Points ∼88% -11%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5221 Points ∼87% -11%
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
5020 Points ∼84% -14%
Average of class Gaming
  (2554 - 6093, n=332)
4222 Points ∼71% -28%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
5859 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
6055 points
Help

Storage Devices

Speaking of which: Gigabyte has opted for a 1 TB large NVMe M.2 SSD made by Transcend (TS1TMTE850). Its AS SSD read and writes speeds of 1,517 and 1,018 MB/s, respectively, were much faster than any SATA-III drive will ever be able to achieve due to its inherent 500 MB/s bus limitation.

While the Transcend SSD was incapable of keeping up with even faster NVMe SSDs such as Samsung’s SM961 or PM961, this should not be noticeable for 95% of all users. Subjectively, these drives feel identical in everyday use.

SSD
SSD
SSD
SSD
HDD
HDD
HDD
HDD

Our review unit was equipped with a secondary conventional 7.200 RPM hard disk drive that offered another 1 TB of storage space. For this drive, Gigabyte has opted for the very popular HGST Travelstar 7K1000.

Aorus X9 DT
Transcend TS1TMTE850
Aorus X9
Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
2x Samsung SM961 MZVPW256HEGL NVMe (RAID 0)
Asus G703
2x Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP NVMe (RAID 0)
AS SSD
75%
40%
36%
80%
96%
Score Total
2145
3753
75%
2862
33%
2581
20%
3392
58%
3962
85%
Score Write
916
1478
61%
1029
12%
930
2%
1289
41%
1519
66%
Score Read
828
1534
85%
1248
51%
1118
35%
1412
71%
1633
97%
4K Write
98.92
134.28
36%
116.23
17%
133.79
35%
128.75
30%
148.44
50%
4K Read
22.23
50.63
128%
44.81
102%
39.52
78%
50.12
125%
47.61
114%
Seq Write
1018.64
1677.74
65%
1145.25
12%
1338.19
31%
2352.3
131%
2556.32
151%
Seq Read
1517.93
2694.9
78%
2352.48
55%
2261.03
49%
3136.95
107%
3177.06
109%
Transcend TS1TMTE850
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 2204 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 1056 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 371.9 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 308.9 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1283 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 1015 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 35.69 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 104.4 MB/s

GPU Performance

Despite the fact that some users will certainly bemoan the loss of the X9’s SLI setup, we personally consider the single GPU setup a distinct advantage due to the aforementioned restrictions and limitations of dual GPU setups. Instead of the predecessor’s two GTX 1070 chips Gigabyte has now chosen a single GTX 1080 running at 1,582 MHz.

3DMark - 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Aorus X9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop)
32640 Points ∼100% +47%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
22566 Points ∼69% +1%
Aorus X9 DT
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
22240 Points ∼68%
Asus G703
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
22160 Points ∼68% 0%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
21366 Points ∼65% -4%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
20307 Points ∼62% -9%
Average of class Gaming
  (385 - 40636, n=447)
10260 Points ∼31% -54%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Aorus X9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop)
41469 Points ∼100% +48%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
29109 Points ∼70% +4%
Asus G703
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
29109 Points ∼70% +4%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
28595 Points ∼69% +2%
Aorus X9 DT
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
27966 Points ∼67%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
27109 Points ∼65% -3%
Average of class Gaming
  (513 - 50983, n=520)
11894 Points ∼29% -57%

Like the CPU, the GPU can also be overclocked in 25 MHz steps. Out of the box, our review unit was set to level 2 and thus running at 1,632 MHz. Just like Intel’s Core CPUs, Nvidia’s Pascal GPUs are capable of dynamic overclocking based on ambient factors and independent of additional overclocking by the manufacturer.

Consequently, our review unit’s GeForce GTX 1080 ran with a very respectable average GPU boost frequency of 1,823 MHz (determined by running the Unigine Heaven 4.0 Benchmark as well as “The Witcher 3”). It was thus on a par with the likes of Acer (Predator 17X) and Asus (ROG Chimera G703).

3DMark 06 Standard
40395 points
3DMark 11 Performance
22703 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
194505 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
42659 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
19250 points
Help

Our review unit held its own during our sustained load tests as well, and frequencies remained fairly consistent in both our CineBench R15 loop (30 minutes multi-thread) and our “Witcher 3” load test (60 minutes at FHD/Ultra).

0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra

Gaming Performance

Due to the display’s resolution if just 1,920x1,080, it is virtually impossible to bring the GeForce GTX 1080 to its knees. All tested games ran smoothly at their respective maximum settings. Many games even managed more than 60 FPS rendering the 144 Hz panel a useful investment. Playing games on an external WQHD display (2,560x1,440) was also a very smooth experience with the Aorus X9 DT. UHD displays (3,840x2,160) can be too much, though.

The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK
99.9 fps ∼100% +29%
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
77.9 fps ∼78% +1%
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK
77.4 fps ∼77%
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
75.9 fps ∼76% -2%
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
68.5 fps ∼69% -11%
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
65 fps ∼65% -16%
Average of class Gaming
  (12.6 - 115, n=223)
44.5 fps ∼45% -43%

Despite the fact that hexa-core CPUs do not tend to have a measurable influence on gaming performance, the X9 DT’s frame rates were significantly higher than on other GTX 1080 laptops. The most likely cause is the Core i9-8950HK’s high clock speeds with performance levels akin to desktop CPUs. Games that are not too limited by the GPU reach their respective CPU limit later and manage to squeeze out some extra FPS along the way. Overclocking the GPU obviously also helps.

low med. high ultra
The Witcher 3 (2015) 14677.4fps
Dirt 4 (2017) 157105fps
F1 2017 (2017) 167115fps
Middle-earth: Shadow of War (2017) 12699fps
The Evil Within 2 (2017) 77.775.3fps
ELEX (2017) 12199.2fps
Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (2017) 139123fps
Assassin´s Creed Origins (2017) 10786fps
Call of Duty WWII (2017) 175149fps
Fortnite (2018) 207160fps
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) 77.6fps
Kingdom Come: Deliverance (2018) 10477.5fps
Far Cry 5 (2018) 120113fps

Emissions

System Noise

By and large, the X9 DT was a very loud notebook. With the fans set to “Gaming”, the four fans were noticeable even when the device was completely idle (36-37 dB(A)) and got even louder with up to 40 dB(A) in low-load usage scenarios such as installing software, Windows updates, or watching videos. The same happened during the boot process.

However, it was when playing games that all hell broke loose. A sound pressure level of between 50 and 61 dB(A) depending on application (for example: 57 dB(A) when running “The Witcher 3”) means that the 17-inch Aorus X9 DT was one of the noisiest notebooks ever reviewed by us. The overall gaming experience is severely limited without headphones and even with them the system noise remained obtrusive and annoying.

system noise idle
system noise idle
system noise load
system noise load
system noise speaker
system noise speaker

As a consequence of these findings, we will refrain from listening to manufacturer’s requests regarding fan or overclocking presets that are clearly optimized for high benchmark at the expense of tolerable levels of noise. We suggest to steer clear not just of higher OC levels, but also the “Gaming” fan mode completely. The 17-inch notebook was surprisingly quiet with the fans set to “Quiet”, which we suggest selecting for office workloads and other low-load usage scenarios such as browsing the web.

Noise Level

Idle
36 / 37 / 43 dB(A)
HDD
33 dB(A)
Load
50 / 61 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 30 dB(A)
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Average of class Gaming
 
Noise
1%
17%
11%
6%
8%
14%
off / environment *
30
30
-0%
28.3
6%
30
-0%
30
-0%
30
-0%
29.4 (27.7 - 32, n=225)
2%
Idle Minimum *
36
35
3%
31.5
12%
33
8%
33
8%
35
3%
31.6 (28 - 41.7, n=648)
12%
Idle Average *
37
37
-0%
31.6
15%
35
5%
34
8%
36
3%
32.8 (28 - 46.6, n=648)
11%
Idle Maximum *
43
43
-0%
31.6
27%
37
14%
38
12%
38
12%
34.7 (28 - 50.4, n=648)
19%
Load Average *
50
49
2%
36.8
26%
40
20%
44
12%
46
8%
40.4 (30.3 - 58, n=649)
19%
Witcher 3 ultra *
57
56
2%
48.2
15%
56
2%
48
16%
Load Maximum *
61
60
2%
52.1
15%
50
18%
62
-2%
54
11%
47.7 (38.9 - 64, n=649)
22%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

While the system got louder compared to its predecessor, surface temperatures were slightly lower in return. The X9 2017 reached a maximum surface temperature of 62 °C (~144 °F) when running FurMark and Prime95 simultaneously; the new model tops out at “just” 55 °C (~131 °F) at the bottom. The top stayed 4 °C (~7 °F) cooler than before - 43 °C (~109 °F) instead of 47 °C (~117 °F) - and when idle, the entire chassis remained below 30 °C (~86 °F).

stress test
stress test
maximum load top (Optris PI 640)
maximum load top (Optris PI 640)
maximim load bottom (Optris PI 640)
maximim load bottom (Optris PI 640)

Due to a lack of throttling both chips got very hot under maximum load with up to 91 °C (~196 °F) and 85 °C (~185 °F) for CPU and GPU, respectively.

Max. Load
 34 °C
93 F
38 °C
100 F
43 °C
109 F
 
 33 °C
91 F
37 °C
99 F
42 °C
108 F
 
 31 °C
88 F
36 °C
97 F
37 °C
99 F
 
Maximum: 43 °C = 109 F
Average: 36.8 °C = 98 F
55 °C
131 F
52 °C
126 F
42 °C
108 F
54 °C
129 F
52 °C
126 F
42 °C
108 F
42 °C
108 F
40 °C
104 F
34 °C
93 F
Maximum: 55 °C = 131 F
Average: 45.9 °C = 115 F
Power Supply (max.)  45 °C = 113 F | Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Voltcraft IR-900
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.8 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 39.3 °C / 103 F, ranging from 21.6 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 55 °C / 131 F, compared to the average of 41.7 °C / 107 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.2 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 37.8 °C / 100 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 38 °C / 100.4 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.7 °C / 83.7 F (-9.3 °C / -16.7 F).
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Average of class Gaming
 
Heat
-9%
16%
-4%
-15%
-11%
-5%
Maximum Upper Side *
43
47
-9%
35.6
17%
44.2
-3%
46
-7%
55
-28%
45.6 (28 - 68.8, n=614)
-6%
Maximum Bottom *
55
62
-13%
39
29%
43
22%
57
-4%
54
2%
49.1 (25.9 - 78, n=612)
11%
Idle Upper Side *
27
30
-11%
24.2
10%
32.4
-20%
34
-26%
29
-7%
30.8 (21.6 - 46.8, n=565)
-14%
Idle Bottom *
29
30
-3%
27.4
6%
32.8
-13%
35
-21%
32
-10%
31.6 (21.1 - 50.3, n=563)
-9%

* ... smaller is better

Speakers

Dolby Atmos
Dolby Atmos

The sound system has been slightly updated. More specifically, although the speakers are still the same, the software has been replaced: instead of Gigabyte’s Tools Audio Equalizer the system now supports Dolby Atmos.

Subjectively speaking the latter makes for a different soundscape; objectively, our audio analysis returned almost identical results to last year’s model with slightly better highs on the latter.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2041.441.22535.834.63129.827.74036.933.45028.727.36325.832.68027.443.210025.947.112524.645.816021.753.220021.958.525022.663.231519.867.340019.170.750017.968.263017.764.980017.664100017.964.8125017.465.5160017.165.5200017.168.1250017.468.1315017.469400017.463.8500017.766.8630017.562800017.552.41000017.452.81250017.552.81600017.254.1SPL29.878N1.344.1median 17.6median 64Delta1.66.935.737.233.530.933.831.532.331.631.632.832.530.529.33029.530.327.63427.441.526.545.425.748.525.851.224.951.324.551.724.760.825.164.42463.923.76024.259.923.660.423.362.323.459.923.464.623.66123.559.523.265.723.261.523.258.52453.23673.82.633.2median 24median 59.91.56hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAorus X9 DTHP Omen X 17-ap0xx
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Aorus X9 DT audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 9.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | reduced highs - on average 5.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (12.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 19% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 8% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 90% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HP Omen X 17-ap0xx audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (65.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 64% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 38% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Given that the Aorus X9 DT does not support Optimus GPU switching, overall power consumption was pretty high: between 28 and 40 W when idle were anything but impressive. Under load, the 17-inch notebook consumed between 109 and 353 W, and was thus above average in this category. At least in part the factory OC settings are to blame for the high power consumption.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 1.6 / 2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 28 / 37 / 40 Watt
Load midlight 109 / 353 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK
Average of class Gaming
 
Power Consumption
-7%
26%
10%
-8%
4%
28%
Idle Minimum *
28
29
-4%
21.6
23%
27
4%
34
-21%
26
7%
20.1 (3.9 - 113, n=609)
28%
Idle Average *
37
35
5%
26.4
29%
32
14%
41
-11%
30
19%
25.7 (6.8 - 119, n=609)
31%
Idle Maximum *
40
42
-5%
26.6
33%
41
-3%
50
-25%
37
7%
30.7 (8.3 - 122, n=609)
23%
Load Average *
109
140
-28%
95.6
12%
102
6%
106
3%
123
-13%
104 (14.1 - 319, n=600)
5%
Load Maximum *
353
334
5%
199.6
43%
248
30%
320
9%
341
3%
166 (21.9 - 590, n=599)
53%
Witcher 3 ultra *
256
295
-15%
221.7
13%
257
-0%
257
-0%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Despite its massive 94 Wh battery, the X9 DT’s battery life was fairly short. Maximum display brightness and high load drained the battery within one hour, minimum display brightness and medium to low load achieved the same in around four hours. In our Wi-Fi test with medium brightness, the device lasted a paltry three hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
4h 12min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
3h 10min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 17min
Aorus X9 DT
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8950HK, 94.24 Wh
Aorus X9
GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop), 7820HK, 94.24 Wh
HP Omen X 17-ap0xx
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 99 Wh
Acer Predator 17 X GX-792-76DL
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 88.8 Wh
MSI GT75VR 7RF-012 Titan Pro
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 75 Wh
Asus G703
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 7820HK, 71 Wh
Average of class Gaming
 
Battery Runtime
-23%
55%
24%
-23%
-24%
22%
Reader / Idle
252
174
-31%
348
38%
313
24%
182
-28%
200
-21%
332 (39 - 1174, n=597)
32%
WiFi v1.3
190
134
-29%
333
75%
251
32%
144
-24%
151
-21%
251 (78 - 622, n=271)
32%
Load
77
71
-8%
117
52%
90
17%
65
-16%
54
-30%
78.6 (18 - 202, n=563)
2%
H.264
138
204
148
143
244 (88 - 506, n=124)

Verdict

Pros

+ high-contrast 144 Hz display with excellent viewing angles
+ mechanical RGB backlit keyboard
+ optional CPU/GPU overclocking
+ X-Rite Pantone certified
+ high storage capacity
+ various useful tools
+ Thunderbolt 3
+ G-Sync

Cons

- interior and fan vents became dusty very quickly
- extremely high noise level in Gaming mode
- high power consumption in standby/off
- design seems fairly random
- poor battery life
Aorus X9 DT. Review unit courtesy of Gigabyte Germany.
Aorus X9 DT. Review unit courtesy of Gigabyte Germany.

The 2018 edition of Gigabyte’s Aorus X9 DT is a mixed bag. Yes, compared to other high-end gaming notebooks the case is pleasingly slim (3 cm/~1/2 in) and yes, at no more than 3.7 kg (~8.1 lb) it is also comparatively light. However, the space savings came at the expense of cooling performance.

With the “Gaming” mode activated and with slight overclocking settings applied, the 17-inch notebook got so stupendously loud that it spoiled the party for good. With these settings, the Aorus X9 DT has set a new record and lowered the bar significantly. Fortunately, the “Normal” and “Quiet” modes were much better.

Those extremely high noise levels aside, Gigabyte has done a pretty good job. The mechanical keyboard with firm feedback and its bright RGB backlight was a pleasure to use. Connectivity was decent and includes Thunderbolt 3. And the 144 Hz display in combination with the Core i9-8950HK, the GeForce GTX 1080, and Nvidia’s G-Sync technology was certainly a highlight.

Aorus X9 DT - 04/16/2018 v6
Florian Glaser

Chassis
76 / 98 → 78%
Keyboard
87%
Pointing Device
78%
Connectivity
72 / 81 → 89%
Weight
52 / 10-66 → 75%
Battery
70%
Display
91%
Games Performance
100%
Application Performance
100%
Temperature
81 / 95 → 85%
Noise
44 / 90 → 49%
Audio
80%
Add Points
-1%
Average
71%
86%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 8 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Aorus X9 DT (i9-8950HK, GTX 1080, FHD) Laptop Review
Florian Glaser, 2018-04-17 (Update: 2018-04-20)