# Zotac GeForce GTX 980 Ti AMP! Extreme 6GB



## W1zzard (Nov 16, 2015)

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*


----------



## Moofachuka (Nov 16, 2015)

Thx for review, but i don't understand why you're measuring MSI lightning for OC performance though...


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 16, 2015)

Moofachuka said:


> Thx for review, but i don't understand why you're measuring MSI lightning for OC performance though...


Fixed, thank you


----------



## Joss (Nov 17, 2015)

Beautiful card. I always had a soft spot for triple slots, particularly the Steam Punkish Asus 680







Thanks for the review.


----------



## jean_dom (Nov 17, 2015)

Assassin's creed unity : 55 frames on a 144hz 1080p monitor or 60hz 1080p? Thanks


----------



## thewhitestigvk (Nov 17, 2015)

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.


----------



## Darksword (Nov 17, 2015)

That *CAN'T *be right.  A single 290X gives 39.9 fps, but two in CrossFire give 108.6 fps??  That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## jean_dom (Nov 17, 2015)

Darksword said:


> That *CAN'T *be right.  A single 290X gives 39.9 fps, but two in CrossFire give 108.6 fps??  That doesn't make any sense.


295x2 is a single amd card not 2 cards of 290x


----------



## silapakorn (Nov 17, 2015)

It's 6GB not 8. The title has it wrong.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2015)

silapakorn said:


> It's 6GB not 8. The title has it wrong.


Fixed


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2015)

Darksword said:


> That *CAN'T *be right.  A single 290X gives 39.9 fps, but two in CrossFire give 108.6 fps??  That doesn't make any sense.


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)


----------



## Hiryougan (Nov 17, 2015)

in summarize:


> Power consumption of NVIDIA Kepler cards is great, and Zotac's Amp Extreme Edition is no exception


Kepler? You meant Maxwell.


----------



## afw (Nov 17, 2015)

Should be 22% faster than the GTX 980 Ti reference at 4K


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 17, 2015)

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  

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)


----------



## Brusfantomet (Nov 17, 2015)

jean_dom said:


> 295x2 is a single amd card not 2 cards of 290x


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)



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.


----------



## jean_dom (Nov 17, 2015)

is this result on a 144hz monitor ??


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2015)

jean_dom said:


> is this result on a 144hz monitor ??


No, how does that matter?


----------



## jean_dom (Nov 17, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> No, how does that matter?



doesn't a 144hz monitor require more gpu performance than a 60hz? am i right? is it takes more FPS?


----------



## Nokiron (Nov 17, 2015)

jean_dom said:


> doesn't a 144hz monitor require more gpu performance than a 60hz? am i right? is it takes more FPS?


No. The refresh rate of the monitor has no correlation on performance.


----------



## jean_dom (Nov 17, 2015)

Nokiron said:


> No. The refresh rate of the monitor has no correlation on performance.


wow.. cool
so i'm gonna buy a 144hz for my evga 980 ti
thanks, noki


----------



## Nordic (Nov 18, 2015)

jean_dom said:


> wow.. cool
> so i'm gonna buy a 144hz for my evga 980 ti
> thanks, noki


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.


----------



## apoe (Nov 19, 2015)

james888 said:


> I actually set my monitor to 120hz because that is easier to reach.



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.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 19, 2015)

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.



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.


----------



## altermere (Nov 20, 2015)

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.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 20, 2015)

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.


Haven't noticed any issues.

I got the Waterforce here, review is almost ready


----------



## Dan848 (Nov 24, 2015)

I purchased the MSI GTX 980Ti LIGHTNING LE at newegg.com when it was $669.99 [U.S.] and overclocked it to the Lightning speed.  [The LE has the same guts as the Lightning, just binned lower.]  It came with a choice of 2 of 3 games worth about $120, and still does.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127910

I made a very quick review here:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/msi-geforce-gtx-980-ti-lightning-le-6gb-review.217564/

[Edit:  I forgot to mention the Lightning LE came with a $30 rebate, and still does.  So, if you get the rebate plus 2 games you like, the price of the card dropped to ~ $520 invested.  It is now $20 dollars more, so you would have $540 invested if you like 2 of the games.]
.


----------



## ChaoticG8R (Mar 17, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> Haven't noticed any issues.
> 
> I got the Waterforce here, review is almost ready


This review still in the works? Curious in comparison to the extreme and Matrix!


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 17, 2016)

ChaoticG8R said:


> This review still in the works? Curious in comparison to the extreme and Matrix!


Two completely different cards going after completely different markets. THe Matrix is made for extreme overclocking (read sub ambient) and has features most wont use. Whereas the extreme and waterforce are for non extreme (ambient) overclocking. They all tend to overclock the same anyway. 1475-1525. Above that, you win the lottery, below that, you lost it.


----------

