Published March 31, 2025 - Updated September 3, 2026 - By Xilly
Xilly vs. Another PC Optimization Service: Measured FPS Comparison
We compared Xilly Core with another paid PC optimization service on the same test system. The provider remains anonymous so the focus stays on scope, methodology, and measured results.
This comparison evaluates two paid PC optimization sessions on the same i9-14900KF, RTX 4070 Ti, and 32 GB DDR5-7200 system: a roughly $60 service from an unnamed PC optimizer and Xilly's Core service. We are intentionally not naming the other provider because the purpose is to compare the work and measured outcome, not create conflict with an individual business.
Xilly conducted this comparison and sells one of the services. The numbers below belong to this system and workload only; they are not a guaranteed result for every customer. The provider is anonymized, but the tested result has not been replaced with an invented industry average.
Test System and Comparison Scope
| Component | Test configuration |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core i9-14900KF |
| GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti |
| Memory | 32 GB DDR5-7200 |
| Games | Valorant and Fortnite |
| Comparison | Previous optimization service result versus Xilly Core result |
| Important limitation | One system; results cannot be generalized to every PC |
A fair comparison requires the same machine, game settings, resolution, frame cap state, and comparable workload. Online gameplay always introduces variation, so the results should be read together with the test conditions and not as a laboratory guarantee.
Measured Valorant Results
| Metric | Previous service | Xilly Core | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average FPS | 915 | 1429 | +56% |
| 1% low FPS | 610 | 911 | +49% |
| 0.1% low FPS | 531 | 894 | +68% |
Measured Fortnite Results
Fortnite was evaluated in a high-stress Performance Mode scenario on the same system. Because match activity changes from run to run, these values are useful real-world evidence but should not be treated as perfectly identical synthetic passes.
| Metric | Previous service | Xilly Core | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average FPS | 485 | 554 | +14% |
| 1% low FPS | 275 | 337 | +23% |
| 0.1% low FPS | 178 | 236 | +33% |
Why the Services Produced Different Results
The comparison did not reveal one magic setting. The practical difference was scope: how Windows, drivers, startup load, power behavior, BIOS, memory, and game configuration were evaluated together. A service that stops after general software cleanup can miss a CPU or memory limit that only appears when frame rates are very high.
Average FPS also does not tell the complete story. The 1% and 0.1% lows represent the slower portion of the frame distribution and help show whether the system remained consistent during difficult moments. Those measurements still need comparable workloads and should not be detached from the complete test context.
Why the Same Test System Matters
Comparing one provider's screenshot from a 7800X3D with another provider's result from a 14900KF would say very little about either service. CPU architecture, memory, GPU, game version, background software, resolution, and graphics settings all affect the ceiling. Using one physical system removes many of those differences, even though ordinary benchmark variance still remains.
The comparison also needs a baseline that is recorded before either service changes the system. Without a stock result, readers cannot tell whether the first service improved the PC, whether the second improved on the first, or whether a later reset changed unrelated settings. Keeping the original result and a record of material changes makes the sequence interpretable.
How to Interpret Large Percentage Differences
A large percentage does not mean one registry value created that gain. It can indicate that the earlier configuration left a major bottleneck unresolved, such as memory behavior, CPU limits, power settings, background load, or game configuration. The larger the result, the more important it is to preserve the test conditions and avoid presenting it as a typical customer outcome.
The starting condition also matters. A poorly configured system has more available headroom than a clean, stable PC that was already set up correctly. Customers with similar hardware can therefore receive very different gains. One may need a major correction; another may mainly benefit from stronger consistency, lower power, or fewer frame-time spikes.
Why Low-Percentile FPS Matters at High Refresh Rates
Competitive players frequently notice inconsistency before they notice average throughput. A system can report a high average while individual slow frames interrupt aiming, tracking, building, or movement. The lower percentiles summarize part of that slower tail, which is why this comparison reports them alongside average FPS.
Low-percentile figures are not immune to bad methodology. Shader compilation, a new map area, a background notification, or a different match can change them sharply. They become more useful when multiple comparable passes tell the same story and when a frame-time plot is available to show whether one isolated hitch distorted the result.
Why the Other Service Is Anonymous
Naming the other provider would turn a single-system comparison into an argument about a company. That is not the purpose of this article. The useful evidence is the hardware, scope, workload, measured result, and limitations—not the identity or location of the technician.
The relevant question is what happened during the appointment. Did the technician inspect the specific hardware? Did the work cover only Windows, or also BIOS and memory? Were changes tested in the customer's games? Could the technician explain why a setting was selected? Those details are more useful than attaching a vague label to the provider.
Stability and Reversibility After the Test
A benchmark pass is not the end of an optimization. CPU, memory, and GPU changes can fail later during another game, an idle period, a cold boot, or a driver update. The tuned PC should be checked across relevant workloads, and the customer should know how to contact support if instability appears.
Material changes should also be recoverable. BIOS profiles, documented settings, restore paths, and clear instructions are more valuable than a mysterious script. If the only way to preserve performance is to avoid touching the PC or updating anything, the service has not left the customer with a maintainable system.
Who Should Use This Result When Choosing a Service?
The comparison is most relevant to buyers deciding between a limited lower-cost optimization and a broader manual session for a high-frame-rate gaming PC. It shows why two services that sound similar can produce different outcomes when their depth and testing differ. It does not establish that every lower-cost provider is inadequate or that every expensive provider is thorough.
Someone with basic startup clutter may not need deep BIOS work. Someone with unstable DDR5, an incorrectly configured high-end CPU, restricted GPU lanes, poor 1% lows, or several interacting symptoms may benefit from the broader scope. The service should match the diagnosed problem rather than the largest marketing promise.
What a Reproducible Follow-Up Test Should Include
A future repeat of this comparison should preserve raw captures from each stage and record the Windows build, BIOS revision, graphics driver, motherboard settings, memory configuration, game patch, resolution, render mode, frame cap, test route, and background applications. Each configuration should receive more than one pass, with unexpected outliers repeated rather than silently discarded.
The reporting should include average FPS, low percentiles, and frame-time plots together. Temperature, clock speed, GPU utilization, and power behavior help explain why a result changed. If the workload is an online match, the article should separate it from a built-in benchmark and acknowledge that player activity and map conditions cannot be made identical.
Publishing that context lets readers judge the evidence without relying on a provider's reputation. It also prevents a later game patch or driver update from being confused with the effect of the optimization itself. Xilly's methodology page documents the standard we intend to use for new comparisons and any future update to this one.
Price Should Be Evaluated Against Time, Depth, and Support
The listed prices describe the services at the time of the comparison, not a permanent market price. A useful cost comparison should include the length of the live session, which system layers are covered, whether performance is tested before and after, and what happens when an issue appears later. A cheaper session can be appropriate when its limited scope matches the problem.
A broader service becomes more relevant when a customer has already paid for high-end hardware and cannot identify why it performs inconsistently. In that situation, the value is not a promised FPS number. It is the time spent tracing the interaction between hardware, firmware, Windows, drivers, and the game, followed by a support period in which the resulting configuration can be corrected if normal use exposes instability.
What This Comparison Does Not Prove
- It does not prove that every Xilly customer will receive the same percentage gain.
- It does not prove that every other optimizer provides the same service or result.
- It does not establish which change produced every part of the difference unless that change was isolated.
- It does not turn an online game scenario into a perfectly repeatable laboratory benchmark.
- It does not mean software tuning can repair failing or fundamentally underpowered hardware.
Questions Buyers Should Ask Before Choosing a Service
- Does the technician inspect the exact CPU, GPU, motherboard, RAM, games, and temperatures?
- Are BIOS and memory included or is the service limited to Windows cleanup?
- Are average FPS, 1% lows, and stability considered together?
- Can the provider explain and reverse material changes?
- What support is provided after the session?
Manual PC Optimization
Compare the Current Xilly Service Scope
Core includes seven days of support. Competitive provides deeper hardware-level tuning and fourteen days of support. Your booked appointment is the live optimization session itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which optimizer was used in this comparison?
The provider is intentionally anonymous so the article can focus on the tested scope and result rather than creating unnecessary conflict with a specific business.
Does Xilly guarantee the same FPS improvement?
No. Results depend on the hardware, games, current configuration, temperatures, and the bottleneck found during the session.
Why include 1% and 0.1% lows?
They help describe the slower frames that average FPS can hide, although they still require comparable workloads and careful interpretation.
Was the test conducted by an independent publisher?
No. Xilly conducted the comparison and sells one of the evaluated services. That commercial relationship is stated so readers can weigh the evidence appropriately.