• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Zotac GeForce GTX 980 Ti AMP! Extreme 6GB

W1zzard

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,745 (3.75/day)
System Specs
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Zotac's GeForce GTX 980 Ti Amp! Extreme is one of the fastest custom-design GTX 980 Ti cards out there, yet comes at a relatively affordable price increase - unlike such competitors as the MSI Lightning or ASUS Matrix.

Show full review
 
Last edited:
Thx for review, but i don't understand why you're measuring MSI lightning for OC performance though...
 
Beautiful card. I always had a soft spot for triple slots, particularly the Steam Punkish Asus 680

IOGEuyB.jpg


Thanks for the review.
 
Assassin's creed unity : 55 frames on a 144hz 1080p monitor or 60hz 1080p? Thanks
 
Hey techpowerup, why did you stop indicating the AA option in your new benchmark design? As far as I can see none of the benchmarked games contain that piece of information except Watch Dogs, but AA was indicated on the page text and not on the actual picture containing the benchmark numbers. Please bring it back. For me that is very important.
 
som_3840_2160.png


That CAN'T be right. A single 290X gives 39.9 fps, but two in CrossFire give 108.6 fps?? :wtf: That doesn't make any sense.
 
Darksword said:
som_3840_2160.png


That CAN'T be right. A single 290X gives 39.9 fps, but two in CrossFire give 108.6 fps?? :wtf: That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
295x2 is a single amd card not 2 cards of 290x
 
It's 6GB not 8. The title has it wrong.
 
Darksword said:
som_3840_2160.png


That CAN'T be right. A single 290X gives 39.9 fps, but two in CrossFire give 108.6 fps?? :wtf: That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Yeah you are right, I've retested it and the numbers are correct, but they can't be true. 295X2 has pretty bad stuttering, maybe that's the cause that something is measured incorrectly. We'll remove SOM before the next rebench anyway (after Crimson, new games, new drivers, probably December)
 
in summarize:
Power consumption of NVIDIA Kepler cards is great, and Zotac's Amp Extreme Edition is no exception
Click to expand...
Kepler? You meant Maxwell.
 
Should be 22% faster than the GTX 980 Ti reference at 4K

perfrel_3840_2160.png
 
nice too bad the price never match ... a 980Ti is 829chf (818$ ~ ) for a Arctic storm or even 912chf (900$ ~ ) for the MSI lightning

so ... actually a 980Ti for me cost closer to a Titan X's msrp than anything else (don't worry the Titan X is also overpriced as f*** where i am ... the +300 you find over a 980Ti msrp you find it also on a Titan X )
currently ... at the 980Ti msrp we have .... the 980 :D

and the Fury X is now slightly above a 980 price but around 100chf to 200chf under a 980Ti (for the most expensive one ofc ... the cheapest one are around 300 to 400chf less than a 980Ti ) again situational ... but surely not 620$ Fury X and 680$ 980Ti
funny ... in the end AMD is cheaper and nvidia is more expensive where i live

does that mean that a Fury X is now, a better choice than a 980Ti ? well to me it does ... it perform similarly at stock only 14% slower than a factory OC 980Ti at 4K (19% slower at 1080p well i would not call that crushing the opposition )
another positive point is: if i try to sell my 980 i can get a price close to a "bnib" that would cover a Fury X and even yield me a bonus ... tho for 15% more it's not totally worth it (still better than paying 270chf more for getting a 980Ti and getting +30%~ , well 29% at 1080p and 34% at 4K)
 
jean_dom said:
295x2 is a single amd card not 2 cards of 290x
Click to expand...
And yet it has two of the same GPUs as the 290X and some water cooling, and relies on Crossfire for the extra performance.

W1zzard said:
Yeah you are right, I've retested it and the numbers are correct, but they can't be true. 295X2 has pretty bad stuttering, maybe that's the cause that something is measured incorrectly. We'll remove SOM before the next rebench anyway (after Crimson, new games, new drivers, probably December)
Click to expand...

Was guessing that the fame time pacing (or lack off) could be the culprit there. Was also wondering how much the 290X throttles compared to the water cooled 295X2.
 
acu_1920_1080.png


is this result on a 144hz monitor ??
 
W1zzard said:
No, how does that matter?
Click to expand...

doesn't a 144hz monitor require more gpu performance than a 60hz? am i right? is it takes more FPS?
 
Nokiron said:
No. The refresh rate of the monitor has no correlation on performance.
Click to expand...
wow.. cool
so i'm gonna buy a 144hz for my evga 980 ti
thanks, noki
 
jean_dom said:
wow.. cool
so i'm gonna buy a 144hz for my evga 980 ti
thanks, noki
Click to expand...
A 60hz and 144hz monitor that are both 1080p require no different amount of gpu performance. Both are 1080p. To get the most out of a 144hz monitor you need to get 144hz. I actually set my monitor to 120hz because that is easier to reach. Your computer is about as good as it gets, so you should be good on most games if you don't do ultra settings.
 
james888 said:
I actually set my monitor to 120hz because that is easier to reach.
Click to expand...

Why would you use less than the monitor's maximum refresh rate?

I guess one benefit of 120 Hz is that it divides evenly to 30 and 60 fps AND 24 fps, so less judder if watching videos in those frame rates? Else I don't see why you wouldn't use 144 instead. Not to mention tearing is less noticeable at higher refresh rates.
 
apoe said:
Why would you use less than the monitor's maximum refresh rate?

I guess one benefit of 120 Hz is that it divides evenly to 30 and 60 fps AND 24 fps, so less judder if watching videos in those frame rates? Else I don't see why you wouldn't use 144 instead. Not to mention tearing is less noticeable at higher refresh rates.
Click to expand...

The primary reason is that I use strobelight beta to enable lightboost on my monitor. Lightboost only works up to 120hz strobed.

When I upgraded to my 144hz monitor I could hardely tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz. Using lightboost is like night and day. I play Natural selection 2, and I would often lose track of small fast moving enemies call skulks as they got close to me. With light boost I can actually see them and follow them. 144hz did not really make a difference.

The secondary reason is that most of the games I play are pretty heavily cpu bound, and drop as low as 60fps. Natural Selection 2 and Planetside 2 can both drop this low. Most of the time in ns2 I have 200 fps, but with ps2 I sit at about 130fps most of the time. You need to actually be able to maintain those fps or the hz does not even matter.
 
Have you experienced fan RPM spikes and power limit issue? These two are very common problems with the card, in fact, I've yet to see confirmation that someone got a perfect defect-free card.

Also, are you planning to test 980 Ti Waterforce? Could be the beastliest 980 Ti yet, and cheaper than the Lightning at $720.
 
libastral said:
Have you experienced fan RPM spikes and power limit issue? These two are very common problems with the card, in fact, I've yet to see confirmation that someone got a perfect defect-free card.

Also, are you planning to test 980 Ti Waterforce? Could be the beastliest 980 Ti yet, and cheaper than the Lightning at $720.
Click to expand...
Haven't noticed any issues.

I got the Waterforce here, review is almost ready
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top