Zotac's GTX 1080 Ti AMP! Extreme is one of the largest GTX 1080 Ti cards on the market, rivaling the Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme card in form factor. The card uses nearly three expansion slots, runs a long PCB and cooler, and hosts a dense aluminum heatsink with a three-fan cooler. This card runs $750 to $770, depending on if the “Core” edition is purchased. The only difference is the out-of-box clock, but all these 1080 Tis perform mostly the same in games (once solving for thermals).
For its VRM, Zotac takes a brute-force approach to the 1080 Ti, using a doubled-up 8-phase (16 phases total) with rebranded QN3107 and QN3103 MOSFETs, operating on a UP9511 in 8-phase mode. The VRM is the reason for the tall card, with two phases tucked off to the side (under a small aluminum heatsink that's isolated from all other cooling). This theoretically helps distribute the heat load better across a larger surface area, which Zotac then cools using a small aluminum fin stack that's isolated from the denser aluminum fin array. Above the VRM's isolated heatsink rests a rubber damper, which doesn't fully make contact (and is presumably to prevent scratching in the event of over-flex during installation, as it otherwise does nothing), and then the three fans.
Above: Contactless rubber bumper above the MOSFET heatsink.
The card is one of the heaviest, largest cards we've looked at this generation. To give some perspective, Zotac's AMP Extreme is about 1” thicker than a 2-slot card (like the reference card), is longer than the Aorus Xtreme, and is heavy from the mass of aluminum resting atop the GPU. Learn more about the inner-workings of this card in our tear-down.
For today, we're focusing on thermals, power, and noise, as that's the biggest difference between any of these 1080 Ti cards. The gaming performance and overclocking performance, sans Kingpin/Lightning cards, is not notably different.
Our newest revisit could also be considered our oldest: the Nehalem microarchitecture is nearly ten years old now, having launched in November 2008 after an initial showing at Intel’s 2007 Developer Forum, and we’re back to revive our i7-930 in 2017.
The sample chosen for these tests is another from the GN personal stash, a well-traveled i7-930 originally from Steve’s own computer that saw service in some of our very first case reviews, but has been mostly relegated to the shelf o’ chips since 2013. The 930 was one of the later Nehalem CPUs, released in Q1 2010 for $294, exactly one year ahead of the advent of the still-popular Sandy Bridge architecture. That includes the release of the i7-2600K, which we’ve already revisited in detail.
Sandy Bridge was a huge step for Intel, but Nehalem processors were actually the first generation to be branded with the now-familiar i5 and i7 naming convention (no i3s, though). A couple features make these CPUs worth a look today: Hyperthreading was (re)introduced with i7 chips, meaning that even the oldest generation of i7s has 4C/8T, and overclocking could offer huge leaps in performance often limited by heat and safe voltages rather than software stability or artificial caps.
We’ve already endured one launch of questionable competence this quarter, looking at X299 and Intel’s KBL-X series, and we nearly escaped Q2 without another. Vega: Frontier Edition has its ups and downs – many of which we’ll discuss in a feature piece next week – but we’re still learning about its quirks. “Gaming Mode” and “Pro Mode” toggling is one of those quirks; leading into this article, it was our understanding – from both AMD representatives and from AMD marketing – that the switch would hold a relevant impact on performance. For this reason, we benchmarked for our review in the “appropriate” mode for each test: Professional applications used pro mode, like SPECviewperf and Blender. Gaming applications used, well, gaming mode. Easy enough, and we figured that was a necessary methodological step to ensure data accuracy to the card’s best abilities.
Turns out, there wasn’t much point.
A quick note, here: The immediate difference when switching to “Gaming Mode” is that WattMan, with all its bugginess, becomes available. Pro Mode does not support WattMan, though you can still overclock through third-party tools – and probably should, anyway, seeing as WattMan presently downclocks memory to Fury X speeds, as it seems to have some leftover code from the Fury X drivers.
That’s the big difference. Aside from WattMan, Gaming Mode technically also offers AMD Chill, something that Pro Mode doesn’t offer a button to use. Other than these interface changes, the implicit, hidden change would be an impact to gaming or to production performance.
Let’s briefly get into that.
This week's hardware news recap primarily focuses on industry topics, like new NAND from Toshiba, Western Digital, and a new SSD from Intel (first 64-layer VNAND SSD). A few other topics sneak in, like AMD's Ryzen Pro CPU line, a Vega reminder (in the video), the death of Lexar, and a few gaming peripherals.
Through the weekend, we'll be posting our Zotac 1080 Ti Amp Extreme review, the first part of our AMD Vega: Frontier Edition Hybrid mod, and a special benchmark feature in our highly acclaimed "Revisit" series.
In the meantime, here's the last week of HW news recapped:
Reader and viewer requests piled high after our Vega: Frontier Edition review, so we pulled the most popular one from the stack to benchmark. In today’s feature benchmark, we’re testing Vega: FE vs. the R9 Fury X at equal core clocks, resulting in clock-for-clock testing that could be loosely referred to as an “IPC” test – that’s not exactly the most correct phrasing, but does most quickly convey the intent of the endeavor. We’ll use the phrase “academic exercise” a few times in this piece, as it’s difficult to draw strong conclusions to other Vega products from this test; ultimately, GPUs simply have too many moving parts to simulate easier IPC benchmarks like you’d find on a CPU. As one limitation is resolved, another emerges – and they’re likely different on each architecture.
Regardless, we’re testing the two GPUs clock for clock to see how Vega: FE responds with the Fury X in the ring.
Toshiba just announced its QLC (Quad-Level Cell) NAND flash, something we talk about in our upcoming news video, and has further claimed that the new 96GB (768Gb) units will compete with TLC NAND in total program/erase endurance. This is Toshiba’s new 64-layer NAND that hasn’t yet made it into consumer products, but likely will make the move within the next year. Like TLC, QLC increases the count of voltage states (now 16) to increase the bits per cell, thereby increasing storage capacity per cell.
Following our AMD Radeon Vega: Frontier Edition review and preceding tear-down, Buildzoid has now returned to analyze the AMD Vega: Frontier Edition PCB & VRM. This is a 12-phase design (doubled-up 6) that ultimately resembles something similar to a 290X Lightning, making it the hands-down best VRM we've seen on a reference card. Given that Vega: FE is $1000, that sort of makes sense -- but Buildzoid does pose some questions as to what's necessary and how much current is really going through the card.
“Disillusioned and confused” could describe much of the response to initial AMD Vega: Frontier Edition testing and reviews. The card’s market positioning is somewhat confusing, possessing neither the professional-level driver certification nor the gaming-level price positioning. This makes Vega: FE ($1000) a very specifically placed card and, like the Titan Xp, doesn’t exactly look like the best price:performance argument for a large portion of the market. But that’s OK – it doesn’t have to be, and it’s not trying to be. The thing is, though, that AMD’s Vega architecture has been so long hyped, so long overdue, that users in our segment are looking for any sign of competition with nVidia’s high-end. It just so happens that, largely thanks to AMD’s decision to go with “Vega” as the name of its first Vega arch card, the same users saw Vega: FE as an inbound do-all flagship.
But it wasn’t really meant to compete under those expectations, it turns out.
Today, we’re focusing our review efforts most heavily on power, thermals, and noise, with the heaviest focus on power and thermals. Some of this includes power draw vs. time charts, like when Blender is engaged in long render cycles, and other tests include noise-normalized temperature testing. We’ve also got gaming benchmarks, synthetics (FireStrike, TimeSpy), and production benchmarks (Maya, 3DS Max, Blender, Creo, Catia), but those all receive less focus than our primary thermal/power analysis. This focus is because the thermal and power behavior can be extrapolated most linearly to Vega’s future supplements, and we figure it’s a way to offer a unique set of data for a review.
In gaming mice news, Thermaltake’s gaming arm, Tt eSports, this week announced the new Nemesis Swtich RGB – a MOBA/MMO gaming mouse.
The Nemesis Switch RGB uses a PMW 3360 optical sensor, topping out at 12,000 DPI, and uses 50-million click Omron switches with 12 programmable buttons for macros. On-board storage exists to permit staging for up to 5 profiles.
Following our first battery of tests, we dismantled our AMD Vega: Frontier Edition card (which we purchased retail) to get a closer look at the VRM & power design, thermal design, card assembly, and sizes for everything on the board. The tear-down process is the first step to our inevitable hybrid mod of AMD Vega, which should determine the card’s headroom with the thermal limitation removed. We’re also using this as an opportunity to report rough die size measurements, HBM stack measurements, and mounting distances for the community.
Full review testing is still forthcoming, as we didn’t have the usual pre-release embargo period to look things over, but this will serve as our first official Vega: FE coverage. Our next round of coverage will likely be a VRM analysis by Buildzoid, which will be accompanied shortly by thermal/power testing and overclock/gaming testing. Production tests will land in there somewhere – those are already half done – we just need to figure out where they fit best, based on content scheduling.
We moderate comments on a ~24~48 hour cycle. There will be some delay after submitting a comment.