Xidax X-8 Gaming PC Review: Skylake-X And Dual GTX 1080 Ti Cards For The Win

Article Index

Xidax X-8 Gaming PC: 3DMark, Heaven & Valley

Futuremark’s graphically intense 3DMark Fire Strike is designed specifically for gaming PCs. It has both Normal and Extreme modes: Normal runs at 1920x1080, while Extreme runs at 2560x1440 and is intended for high end gaming PCs.

Futuremark 3DMark Fire Strike
Simulated Gaming Performance

The benchmark uses tessellation, ambient occlusion, volume illumination, and a high quality depth of field filter. We tested the Xidax X-8 on the Extreme preset. 

Xidax X-8 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme

Xidax X-8 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme FPS

Xidax's X-8 did not waste any time asserting its graphics dominance over the competition. In 3DMark's Fire Strike Extreme benchmark, the dual GPUs in this setup shoveled pixels around at a frenetic pace. Even three GeForce GTX 980 Ti cards, as found in Maingear's Rush Superstock X99, fall short of the X-8. This is exactly the type of performance we expect to see from a high-dollar system.

Unigine Heaven and Valley
DirecX11 Gaming Performance

Unigine's Heaven 4.0 is a GPU-intensive benchmark that hammers graphics cards to the limits. It features hardware tessellation with DirectX 11 and focuses solely on the GPU with real-time global illumination, screen space ambient occlusion, volumetric clouds, and adjustable settings. Valley offers a similar evaluation, and like Heaven it can be used both as a benchmark and a stress testing tool.

Unigine Heaven
Unigine Heaven 4.0

Xidax X-8 Heaven

Xidax X-8 Heaven FPS

So far, so good. In Heaven, the X-8 out muscled previous generation systems outfitted with dual graphics cards, and smoked every configuration that wielded a single GPU. Of particular interest is the bump in performance over the Alienware Area-51 with its solo GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, versus two of the same card in the X-8.

Xidax X-8 Valley

The results are a little different in Valley 1.0. Rather than take the pole position, the X-8 slips to second place, averaging around 143 frames per second. We suspect that part of the reason the X-8 didn't finish in front of the Vybe is because this benchmark isn't heavily threaded, and is somewhat CPU limited. As a result, the Vybe's aggressive overclock to 5GHz allowed it to finish ahead of the X-8. Nevertheless, pushing 140 fps is nothing to scoff at.

Related content

Comments

Show comments blog comments powered by Disqus