# Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Waterforce Xtreme Gaming 6 GB



## W1zzard (Nov 16, 2015)

Gigabyte's GTX 980 Ti Xtreme Gaming comes with a watercooling solution onboard, which provides excellent temperatures and low noise. In our testing, the card turns out to be the fastest GTX 980 Ti we ever tested, and with $720, it's not as expensive as the MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning either.

*Show full review*


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 26, 2015)

Did you say you only expect Pascal to be 20% faster than maxwell???



> Compared to the GTX 980 Ti reference design, the increase is 21% at 4K, which is probably similar to the performance uplift that we can expect from NVIDIA's next-generation Pascal cards



That would be disappointing.....


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 26, 2015)

Ok. +1 to that^

.... what? the biggest jump in lithography and memory bandwidth in decades gonna result in 20% performance increase? how?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 26, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Did you say you only expect Pascal to be 20% faster than maxwell???
> That would be disappointing.....


Also seems to go against Nvidia's own presentation unless Nvidia are adopting half-rate double precision for Pascal*. Common theory points to 1:3:6 (FP64:FP32:FP16) even with 128 cores per SM rather than 192. (1:3:6 ratio would put Pascal in line with Nvidia's previous estimates: 4TFLOPs FP64, 12TFLOPs single precision)







...which (if W1zzard is correct) would point to a relatively small GPU as Nvidia's flagship, or the flagship HPC Pascal differs from the gaming flagship Pascal. The CUDA DLL does seem to list a GP 102 in addition to the more usual 100/104/106/107/108 naming nomenclature.

* (As indicated by the SC15 presentation)


Spoiler











@the54thvoid 
I just re-read the quote you quoted. It could also be interpreted as Pascal having the same overclock headroom as Maxwell (!). Given the transistor density of 16nmFF+ I'd take that as good news.


----------



## maximoor (Nov 26, 2015)

> 21% faster than the GTX 980 Ti reference at 4K



What I see in this chart is that the 980 Ti has only 79% of the performance of GB 980 Ti WF .. which translates into +~26.6% boost for GB card relatively to 980 Ti reference.
Or am I wrong?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 26, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Did you say you only expect Pascal to be 20% faster than maxwell???
> 
> 
> 
> That would be disappointing.....


NVIDIA is smart, they will milk us with small performance increments, look at history, how big the changes were between generations


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 26, 2015)

Interesting card, it's like Fury X... but good.

It's not like Maxwell needs to go under water anyway, the Palit JetStream is still my fave.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 26, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> NVIDIA is smart, they will milk us with small performance increments, look at history, how big the changes were between generations


This is the hard truth. Nvidia only provides the bare minimum of performance, most noticeably starting with Kepler where they started holding back the big chips till later. They use to launch with those.

If they were being more aggressively challenged by AMD these past few years I think either A) cards now would be twice as powerful or B) we'd at least have a longer time to enjoy our top tier cards being top tier because if they were launching with the big chips we'd have more of a lull between each architecture release. Prices may also be better. Either way we've suffered for this lack of technological competition.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 26, 2015)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> This is the hard truth. Nvidia only provides the bare minimum of performance, most noticeably starting with Kepler where they started holding back the big chips till later. They use to launch with those.
> 
> If they were being more aggressively challenged by AMD these past few years I think either A) cards now would be twice as powerful or B) we'd at least have a longer time to enjoy our top tier cards being top tier because if they were launching with the big chips we'd have more of a lull between each architecture release. Prices may also be better. Either way we've suffered for this lack of technological competition.



It's funny isn't it? All those leaked graphs apparently showing Fiji was going to destroy Nvidia and finally crush them under the shining light that is AMD goodness.

Yet Nv release and slightly cut GM200 based GTX 980 Ti and basically offer better value from day one.

Wonders never cease.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Nov 26, 2015)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> This is the hard truth. Nvidia only provides the bare minimum of performance, most noticeably starting with Kepler where they started holding back the big chips till later. They use to launch with those.
> 
> If they were being more aggressively challenged by AMD these past few years I think either A) cards now would be twice as powerful or B) we'd at least have a longer time to enjoy our top tier cards being top tier because if they were launching with the big chips we'd have more of a lull between each architecture release. Prices may also be better. Either way we've suffered for this lack of technological competition.




well lets not rule out AMD and Nvidia playing a game together, agreeing not to push it too far so both and enjoy easy profits


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 27, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> well lets not rule out AMD and Nvidia playing a game together, agreeing not to push it too far so both and enjoy easy profits


That is probably closer to the mark I think. AMD/ATI and Nvidia have colluded in the past, and their distinct lack of interest in initiating any kind of price war (aside from the occasional limited run salvage part) tends to indicate that they are quite happy with their revenue streams at the expense of true competition.


LAN_deRf_HA said:


> This is the hard truth. Nvidia only provides the bare minimum of performance, most noticeably starting with Kepler where they started holding back the big chips till later. They use to launch with those.


That is basic strategy for the productization and ROI for silicon, it's just that if you are the dominant player in the market, you are under less pressure with product cadence (see Intel)


LAN_deRf_HA said:


> If they were being more aggressively challenged by AMD these past few years I think either A) cards now would be twice as powerful or


Very unlikely. Both vendors are bound by the fabrication process (and its die size limits) and adhering to a common specification (ATX). Without the latter it is impossible to achieve large scale commoditization for add-in hardware components.


LAN_deRf_HA said:


> B) we'd at least have a longer time to enjoy our top tier cards being top tier because if they were launching with the big chips we'd have more of a lull between each architecture release


If you look back to when we had multiple graphics vendors ( ATI, 3dfx, S3, Matrox ) and even discounting the low end (Trident, SiS,  3DLabs, VideoLogic/Imagination, Tseng Labs etc.), that was never really the case either. Admittedly the strides were greater and the product lives shorter because the 3D graphics pipeline evolution and the pace of memory introduction were faster - something we are revisiting currently. I'd tend to note that the only reasons last generation (or earlier) cards aren't deemed competitive is because of shoddy game coding, people fixated with 4K screen resolution, API advancements, and the consumers addiction to the next best thing.

Add-in card sales have fallen consistently over the years. Launching your biggest and best at the beginning of a process node just means you generally have no room for improvement for the 2-4 years the node lasts. That becomes a tough economic sell for companies who tend to rely upon serial upgraders.


ZoneDymo said:


> Prices may also be better.


Maybe. That used to be the case...but lower prices means lower margins, and that means a war of attrition (and deepest pockets). There's a reason that there used to around 50 graphics IHV's and now there are just a little over a handful (including the embedded market).

Anyhow, regarding the actual review topic, an interesting comparison between AIO implementations as @Fluffmeister noted. Academic interest only for me though. If I want a watercooled card I'd just add one to my loop and avoid all the extra plumbing.


----------



## Constantine Yevseyev (Nov 27, 2015)

720 USD doesn't seem like much, although it's really tempting to just get a couple cheaper GTX 970s (like Zotac Omega ones) instead, they seem to be handling this competition pretty well, and since they're Maxwell-based the power consumption isn't going to be a problem... Of course, if you've got a capable motherboard and a 600W+ PSU, which is not my case, apparently.



HumanSmoke said:


> Also seems to go against Nvidia's own presentation unless Nvidia are adopting half-rate double precision for Pascal


There's a presentation on that?.. I'm looking for any materials related to Pascal's internals (handling of arithmetic ops, driver API, pipeline), do you happen to know where I can find that? Don't really follow the events that take place in USA, so... I finally have some spare time to spend on watching presentations and stuff (TPU, gaming), but I don't really know where to start, so I figured you could help? Thanks in advance.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 27, 2015)

Just a suggestion on the reviews.  I notice the performance charts for each game are ordered 1600x900, 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160.  But then the order flips when you get to the Performance Summary page.  I think it might throw people off if they aren't paying attention.  It might be better to have all the performance charts in the same orders.


----------



## ZeroFM (Nov 27, 2015)

VRAM cooling , where ??? . i have palit gtx980ti super jetstream , under heavy load i can't hold hand on backplate , i think 85c+


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 27, 2015)

Constantine Yevseyev said:


> There's a presentation on that?.. I'm looking for any materials related to Pascal's internals (handling of arithmetic ops, driver API, pipeline), do you happen to know where I can find that? Don't really follow the events that take place in USA, so... I finally have some spare time to spend on watching presentations and stuff (TPU, gaming), but I don't really know where to start, so I figured you could help? Thanks in advance.


Well, I'm not in the U.S. either, but do have more than a passing interest in architectures. I don't think there is much in the way of publicly disseminated info on Pascal - hence the speculation. Nvidia's most recent available info on Maxwell ( the CUDA toolkit and Tegra X1) probably provides a good baseline measure of FP16 per SMM, and we know from an earlier presentation that Nvidia is quoting Pascal's FP16 rate as being four times that of Maxwell...




...then the equation comes down to clock speed and ALU count/ALU per module, which is where it all breaks down. Do Nvidia go for broke on the biggest GPU they can put together on a new (and late) process node, or do they scale back (maybe the GP102 listed earlier) for the first iteration - say upping ROP:TAU:Core by a third or so from GM200 and keep the GPU to a reasonable size. I haven't heard anything reputable regarding this. All the talk of 17 billion transistors for Pascal seems to originate from clickbait fantasy writers from such industry leaders as wccftech and fudzilla. 
WRT to graphics pipeline, your guess is good as mine. Risk silicon for GP100 has already been shipped for validation and verification, but who knows whether it is representative of final silicon (extremely unlikely), or just proof of concept with further revision to take place. I presume you already have the SC15 presentation (>>here (pdf) <<<). Nothing to get excited about on the Pascal front unfortunately.


----------



## FrozenGamer (Nov 27, 2015)

I was lucky enough to get this card yesterday from Amazon.  It is a decent card.  I was not able to overclock as well as this review, I got about +50MHz and +400 for Graphics score in firestrike of 20500.   My card has a 70 ASIC score.  My biggest issues are the fan noise, anything past 30% is quite noticeable, the short hoses at about 11" and the horrible OC Guru software.  At stock clocks the fan doesn't get over 30% so that isn't a big deal and the hose issue just required me to move my H220X over so that this radiator could be in the top back spot in my case.  The OC guru software is needed to change the LED color, and boy is that software the biggest pile of you know what.  Fortunately the color change seems to be sticking between reboots so I am able to use afterburner.  If anyone has questions I am happy to answer.


----------



## BiggieShady (Nov 27, 2015)

FrozenGamer said:


> My biggest issues are the fan noise, anything past 30% is quite noticeable ...


Did you try to set a custom fan profile in afterburner that goes max to 30% fan speed ... temps never go past 50 C anyway


----------



## basco (Nov 27, 2015)

thanks very much for the review!
you mentioned that the uP1983A voltage controller is used on gigabyte 980 g1 gaming card? there you say :OnSemi NCP81174 voltage controller, the same as on the NVIDIA GTX 980 reference design.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 27, 2015)

basco said:


> thanks very much for the review!
> you mentioned that the uP1983A voltage controller is used on gigabyte 980 g1 gaming card? there you say :OnSemi NCP81174 voltage controller, the same as on the NVIDIA GTX 980 reference design.


http://www.modders-inc.com/gigabyte-gtx-980-g1-gaming-4gb-video-card-review/3/

But you are right, my review shows a different controller, looks like they switched at some point


----------



## FrozenGamer (Nov 27, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Did you try to set a custom fan profile in afterburner that goes max to 30% fan speed ... temps never go past 50 C anyway


Yes, I found setting the curve at a constant 30% works pretty well.  Fan can't be heard and cooling seems sufficient in any of the games I have played.


----------



## avatar_raq (Nov 27, 2015)

"The latest installment of Activision's Call of Duty Series..." 
"The latest entry to Ubisoft's smash-hit stealth sandbox franchise...."
These two lines need to be updated. Great review.


----------



## Maban (Nov 27, 2015)

maximoor said:


> What I see in this chart is that the 980 Ti has only 79% of the performance of GB 980 Ti WF .. which translates into +~26.6% boost for GB card relatively to 980 Ti reference.
> Or am I wrong?


You're right. It bothers me when he does this too. What he should be saying is that it's 26.6% higher performance. Or alternatively he could say it is 21 percentage points higher.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 27, 2015)

Maban said:


> You're right. It bothers me when he does this too. What he should be saying is that it's 26.6% higher performance. Or alternatively he could say it is 21 percentage points higher.


yup, that is the correct way to use it


----------



## henrickd (Nov 27, 2015)

Hi, I have a question about your overall performance charts, what kind of 970 do you use and what clock speed does it have while testing?

I was thinking to move from dual 970s to a 980 Ti because I'm tired of SLI. But I see this highly OCed 980 Ti cannot surpass 970 SLI at 1440p... if you're showing result for stock clocked 970s then I think I'd be losing a lot more performance than I thought going OC 970s -> OC 980 Ti. I was expecting maybe 10% less from 980 Ti when compared stock to stock and instead I find nearly 25% which seriously makes me reconsider.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Nov 28, 2015)

looks cool but not so worth the money IMO... would rather grab a reference GTX980Ti, Corsair's HG10 N980 GPU Bracket & Hydro H60 AIO Kit then bump up both core & memory while saving money at the same time.


----------



## lanq8 (Nov 28, 2015)

Apologies if I missed it in the review but how effective is the waterblock cooling on the VRM compared to an air cooled card as well the hybrid cooling cards from EVGA and MSI / Corsair?


----------



## altermere (Nov 29, 2015)

I wonder if they will cover component damage from a water leak. Gigabyte doesn't have a forum so I don't know where to ask this.
EVGA will, for example.
http://forums.evga.com/EVGA-GeForce-GTX-980-HYBRID-warranty-question-m2314070.aspx

Also, I noticed a typo in the spec table, it says GTX 980 Waterforce instead of 980 Ti.


----------



## iO (Nov 30, 2015)

Bit too pricey but nice card.
And the baseplate is definitely not a vapor chamber..


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 30, 2015)

iO said:


> And the baseplate is definitely not a vapor chamber..


I took another look, you seem to be right, it's just a thick copper plate


----------



## henrickd (Nov 30, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> I took another look, you seem to be right, it's just a thick copper plate


Hey W1zzard if you do not mind, can you please answer a question I had while reading this review? I was wondering, is the 970 SLI really that much better than reference 980 Ti, and basically equal to this highly factory overclocked 980 Ti? Since the reference 970 is so rare, I see here that you are using some non-reference 970s that you set at stock to simulate a reference card (assuming it's still the same cards 1+ years later). But since they are non-reference blower-style cooler, I assume they give more leeway for GPU boost 2.0 to increase clock speeds. So my assumption is that they are boosting much higher than the 970's boost clock of 1178 while the reference 980 Ti is much closer to its boost clock of 1075. So maybe the 970s are actually running much closer to their max OC than the 980 Ti?

I'm asking because I was thinking of switching to a 980 Ti from SLI 970 but your result shows a very significant advantage for the SLI 970. While I was ready to give up some performance for single-card convenience, I certainly didn't think the difference would be that big, but if you told me that your 970s are around 1300 while the 980 Ti is around 1100  it would explain everything. And your reviews are basically the only place I can get this kind of info from, few sites have 970 SLI vs 980 Ti scores.


----------



## trog100 (Dec 5, 2015)

henrickd said:


> Hey W1zzard if you do not mind, can you please answer a question I had while reading this review? I was wondering, is the 970 SLI really that much better than reference 980 Ti, and basically equal to this highly factory overclocked 980 Ti? Since the reference 970 is so rare, I see here that you are using some non-reference 970s that you set at stock to simulate a reference card (assuming it's still the same cards 1+ years later). But since they are non-reference blower-style cooler, I assume they give more leeway for GPU boost 2.0 to increase clock speeds. So my assumption is that they are boosting much higher than the 970's boost clock of 1178 while the reference 980 Ti is much closer to its boost clock of 1075. So maybe the 970s are actually running much closer to their max OC than the 980 Ti?
> 
> I'm asking because I was thinking of switching to a 980 Ti from SLI 970 but your result shows a very significant advantage for the SLI 970. While I was ready to give up some performance for single-card convenience, I certainly didn't think the difference would be that big, but if you told me that your 970s are around 1300 while the 980 Ti is around 1100  it would explain everything. And your reviews are basically the only place I can get this kind of info from, few sites have 970 SLI vs 980 Ti scores.



i moved from a pair of evga sc 970 cards to a pair of palit jetstream 980 ti cards.. the 970 cards in sli out perform a single 980 ti by maybe 10 or 15 percent..

but the 980 ti has more memory and dosnt need good game sli optimization.. at anything less than 4 K both options are more than adequate..

my air cooled super jetstreams run around 65 C with a more aggressive fan profile..  at stock they are set up more for silent running than maximum cooling.. you take your pick between a little more noise or a little more cooling..

i think in most cases AIO water cooling is more a fashion fad than a necessity..  i didnt consider a single 980 ti card an upgrade which is why i bought two of the bloody things.. in the real world its hard to tell the difference between 970 sli and a single 980 TI without running benchmarks.. but for real 4 K gaming which i dont think is here for real yet a pair of 980 ti cards are needed..

unless you are thinking about adding a second 980 ti card later on there really is no point in ditching your 970 cards for a single 980 ti.. absolutely none..

i run 1084 at 144 hrz.. my second 980 ti card is (mostly) switched off.. its there if i need it but as yet i dont need it.. 

having spare performance in hand gives me a nice comfy feeling.. he he.. 

trog


----------



## HumanSmoke (Dec 6, 2015)

*Looks like Asetek will be putting this card on their hit list if it is using the same CM cooler as the Fury X*


----------



## Figus (Dec 10, 2015)

I've got some question.... TW3 benchmark...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/23.html
Why in this review at 1440p Fury is near 60 fps (and that is the real performance, got just one at home) and in the 980Ti review is at 35 fps?? What happened? They changed something?


----------



## speedy_3014 (Dec 10, 2015)

Would be quite interested in this, but I already have my 980's so I won't bother.


----------



## Hades (Jan 12, 2016)

Hey W1zz! I was wondering: why there's no R9 Nano in the charts? I was curious to see the performance increases driver after driver of that tiny card, now that it got its price sliced...


----------



## ZeroFM (Jan 20, 2016)

where 980Ti SLI , titan x SLI review ?


----------



## mcraygsx (Jan 21, 2016)

Question when the Author said "An interesting side effect of watercooling is that power efficiency has gone way up. Because the GPU never reaches temperatures above 50°C, it will run at much better efficiency".

Does this mean this GPU requires and will run at  lower voltage/lower TDP for same Clock then compare to cards using on Air cooled heatsink?

I am trying to decide if this is worth it over air cooled version aka GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 980Ti 6GB XTREME GAMING OC EDITION.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_re=gigabyte_980_ti-_-14-125-837-_-Product


----------

