Evga Geforce Gtx 1080 Ti 11gb Ftw3 Review

The EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 is the company's attempt at a 3-fan cooler, entering EVGA into the three-fan ranks aslope ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI. The deviation with EVGA'due south menu, though, is that it'due south a 2-slot design; board partners have gone with a "bigger is ameliorate" mentality for the 1080 Ti, and it's not necessarily advantageous. Sure, there are benefits – taller cards mean taller fans, like on the Gaming X, which results in slower rotation of fans without sacrificing volume of air moved. It follows then that taller fans on taller cards could exist profiled to run quieter, without necessarily sacrificing thermal performance of the GPU, VRM, and VRAM components.

But we're testing today to encounter how all that plays out in reality. In our EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 review, we benchmark the menu vs. EVGA'southward own SC2, MSI's 1080 Ti Gaming Ten, Gigabyte's Xtreme Aorus, and the Founders Edition card. Each of these as well has an individual review posted, if yous're looking for break-outs on any one device. See the following links for those (listed in social club of publication):

• EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC2 review
• Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti Xtreme Aorus review
• GN Hybrid 1080 Ti reference review (with liquid)
• MSI GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X review
• NVidia GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition review

It's Not About Gaming Performance

Having reviewed this many cards in the past few weeks, it should exist apparent to everyone that same-GPU cards aren't really differentiated past gaming operation. Gaming performance is going to be inside a few percentage points of all devices, no matter what, because they're ultimately governed by the GPU. A manufacturer can throw the world's best PCB, VRM, and cooler together, and it's still going to striking a Pascal wall of voltage and power budget. Further, flake quality dictates functioning in greater means than PCB or VRM will. We accept duplicates of almost of our cards, and they tin perform 1-3% autonomously from one another, depending on which boosts higher out-of-box.

To this end, that also means that declaring difficult victors is sort of crude – all those statements are made based on our samples, but information technology'south always possible that one card might perform +1% in our sample, but -1% in some other sample. Amid other reasons, this is why gaming performance gets a back seat once we've determined a baseline for AIB partner performance of a new GPU.

What matters more is the cooling solution, the PCB quality, and the noise levels. We are therefore checking for things like component quality (already done separately, but revisited below), thermals, and noise output. Gaming, again, gets a back seat. Overclocking is also inevitably limited by Pascal itself, so even that is relatively unexcited for same-GPU video card comparisons.

EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 PCB, VRM, & Tear-Downward

We've already posted videos showing a tear-down of the EVGA 1080 Ti FTW3 (establish hither) and analyzing in groovy depth the VRM & PCB of the FTW3.

Recapping the most of import bits: The GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 uses an excellently engineered PCB and power delivery solution, accompanied by an every bit over-engineered cooling solution. The Vcore VRM is comprised of Alpha-Omega Semiconductor E6930 Dual-Due north MOSFETs, which package loftier-side, low-side, and diode components into the same parcel. At that place are twenty total FET packages on the board, ten driver ICs, and five doublers, combined with an NCP81274 voltage controller. The voltage controller is an 8-phase controller capable of one.2MHz switching frequency. EVGA is using NCP81162 doublers to load rest between the two phases, largely eliminating the risk of out-of-balance current between two phases (as they are counterbalanced by EVGA'south doublers). This as well reduces strain on the 12V rails, which should make the power supply happy.

EVGA'south drivers are also from NCP, using NCP81158 drivers, though they tin't quite keep up with the rise and autumn times of the dual-N FET ascension and fall times (and can't support higher gate-drive voltages than 5v).

Acquire more about all of this in our PCB breakdown video:

As for the rest of the card, information technology's largely comprised of overcompensating cooling solutions across all devices – yes, fifty-fifty fan controllers are connected via thermal pad – and three fans to individually cool partitions of the card. The heatsink is split into two main halves – GPU+MEM and PWR – and uses a mix of EVGA's new fin designs to amend cooling efficiency. Although the fin density and placement aren't all that unique, the tail of the fins tin can exist: EVGA switches betwixt directly fins (with no contact to componentry), L-shaped fins (with contact to thermal pads, but permitting airflow), and airtight fins (for full contact, only no airflow). The blazon of fin used depends on which component that part of the cooler covers; VRM components tend to contact the finstack via L-shaped fins, whereas less critical inductors are under straight fins.

Several MCUs are on the card for individual and asynchronous fan control, slaving to one of EVGA's somewhat aggressive fan profiles (more on that momentarily), and the MCUs report to a functional RGB LED GPM meter on the carte. GPM ways "GPU," "Power," and "Retentiveness." This menu is laid-out in a fashion that it's more accurate to say GMP. Graphics and memory fans are on the left, ability is on the right.

As for thermistors used, we previously detailed in swell depth that EVGA is using negative blazon thermistors (NTCs) in 9 locations on the board. What's important hither is that the location of those thermistors is non the same between EVGA ICX devices, so PWR1 does not necessarily equal PWR1 between two cards. The SC2 card, for case, uses a reference nVidia FE PCB with EVGA'southward NTC thermistors positioned all along the front of the board, while the FTW3 PCB positions a few on the back-side. PWR4 is the biggest difference, which nosotros'll talk almost in the thermal section.

You cannot compare EVGA ICX thermistor readings between cards without scrutiny.

The 2 can exist compared, but only insofar every bit GPU and MEM readings (and even so, only if EVGA never changes which memory modules receive which reporting tag).

GPU Testing Methodology

For our benchmarks today, nosotros're using a fully rebuilt GPU examination bench for 2017. This is our outset total set of GPUs for the yr, giving united states of america an opportunity to movement to an i7-7700K platform that'due south clocked higher than our old GPU test bed. For all the excitement that comes with a new GPU test bench and a clean slate to work with, we too lose some data: Our old GPU tests are completely incomparable to these results due to a new prepare of numbers, completely new testing methodology, new game settings, and new games existence tested with. DOOM, for instance, now has a new test methodology behind it. We've moved to Ultra graphics settings with 0xAA and async enabled, also dropping OpenGL entirely in favor of Vulkan + more Dx12 tests.

We've also automated a pregnant portion of our testing at this point, reducing manual workload in favor of greater focus on analytics.

Driver version 378.78 (printing-ready drivers for 1080 Ti, provided by nVidia) was used for all nVidia devices. Version 17.10.1030-B8 was used for AMD (press drivers).

A divide bench is used for game performance and for thermal performance.

Thermal Test Bench

Our test methodology for the is largely parallel to our EVGA VRM final torture test that nosotros published late final year. We use logging software to monitor the NTCs on EVGA'south ICX card, with our own calibrated thermocouples mounted to power components for non-ICX monitoring. Our thermocouples use an agglutinative pad that is i/100th of an inch thick, and does not interfere in any meaningful way with thermal transfer. The pad is a combination of polyimide and polymethylphenylsiloxane, and the thermocouple is a K-type hooked upwards to a logging meter. Calibration offsets are applied every bit necessary, with the exact same thermocouples used in the aforementioned spots for each test.

Torture testing used Kombustor's 'Furry Donut' testing, 3DMark, and a few games (to determine auto fan speeds under 'real' usage atmospheric condition, used later for racket level testing).

Our tests apply self-agglutinative, 1/100th-inch thick (read: light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation thin, does not cause "air gaps") One thousand-type thermocouples straight to the rear-side of the PCB and to hotspot MOSFETs numbers 2 and vii when counting from the lesser of the PCB. The thermocouples used are apartment and are self-adhesive (from Omega), equally recommended by thermal engineers in the industry -- including Bobby Kinstle of Corsair, whom we previously interviewed.

K-blazon thermocouples have a known range of approximately two.2C. We calibrated our thermocouples by providing them an "water ice bath," then providing them a boiling water bath. This provided us the data required to sympathise and adjust results accordingly.

Because we have concerns pertaining to thermal electrical conductivity and bear on of the thermocouple pad in its placement expanse, we selected the pads discussed above for uninterrupted performance of the cooler by the test equipment. Electric electrical conductivity is besides a business concern, every bit you don't want bare wire to crusade an electrical brusque on the PCB. Fortunately, these thermocouples are non electrically conductive forth the wire or placement pad, with the wire using a PTFE coating with a 30 AWG (~0.0100"⌀). The thermocouples are 914mm long and connect into our dual logging thermocouple readers, which then take second by second measurements of temperature. We also log ambience, and employ an ambient modifier where necessary to arrange test passes and then that they are fair.

The response time of our thermocouples is 0.15s, with an accompanying resolution of 0.1C. The laminates arae fiberglass-reinforced polymer layers, with junction insulation comprised of polyimide and fiberglass. The thermocouples are rated for only nether 200C, which is enough for any VRM testing (and if we go over that, something will probably blow, anyway).

To avoid EMI, we mostly guess-and-check placement of the thermocouples. EMI is caused by power plane PCBs and inductors. We were able to avoid electromagnetic interference by routing the thermocouple wiring correct, toward the less populated one-half of the board, and then down. The cables go out the board near the PCI-due east slot and avoid crossing inductors. This resulted in no observable/measurable EMI with regard to temperature readings.

We decided to deploy AIDA64 and GPU-Z to measure direct temperatures of the GPU and the CPU (becomes relevant during torture testing, when we dump the CPU radiator's heat directly into the VRM fan). In addition to this, logging of fan speeds, VID, vCore, and other aspects of power management were logged. Nosotros then use EVGA's custom Precision build to log the thermistor readings 2d by second, matched confronting and validated between our own thermocouples.

The master test platform is detailed below:

GN Test Bench 2015	Proper noun	Courtesy Of	Cost
Video Card	This is what we're testing	-	-
CPU	Intel i7-5930K CPU 3.8GHz	iBUYPOWER	$580
Memory	Corsair Dominator 32GB 3200MHz	Corsair	$210
Motherboard	EVGA X99 Classified	GamersNexus	$365
Power Supply	NZXT 1200W HALE90 V2	NZXT	$300
SSD	OCZ ARC100 Crucial 1TB	Kingston Tech.	$130
Instance	Peak Deck Tech Station	GamersNexus	$250
CPU Cooler	Asetek 570LC	Asetek	-

Annotation also that we swap test benches for the GPU thermal testing, using instead our "red" bench with 3 case fans -- only i is connected (directed at CPU surface area) -- and an elevated collision for the 120mm fatty radiator cooler from Asetek (for the CPU) with Gentle Draft fan at max RPM. This is elevated out of airflow pathways for the GPU, and is irrelevant to testing -- but we're detailing information technology for our own notes in the future.

Game Bench

GN Test Demote 2017	Name	Courtesy Of	Toll
Video Card	This is what we're testing	-	-
CPU	Intel i7-7700K 4.5GHz locked	GamersNexus	$330
Retentivity	GSkill Trident Z 3200MHz C14	Gskill	-
Motherboard	Gigabyte Aorus Gaming seven Z270X	Gigabyte	$240
Power Supply	NZXT 1200W HALE90 V2	NZXT	$300
SSD	Plextor M7V Crucial 1TB	GamersNexus	-
Instance	Summit Deck Tech Station	GamersNexus	$250
CPU Cooler	Asetek 570LC	Asetek	-

BIOS settings include C-states completely disabled with the CPU locked to iv.5GHz at 1.32 vCore. Memory is at XMP1.

We communicated with both AMD and nVidia about the new titles on the demote, and gave each company the opportunity to 'vote' for a title they'd like to run across us add together. We figure this will help fifty-fifty out some of the game biases that be. AMD doesn't make a big showing today, only will soon. We are testing:

• Ghost Recon: Wildlands (born bench, Very High; recommended by nVidia)
• Sniper Elite 4 (High, Async, Dx12; recommended by AMD)
• For Accolade (Extreme, transmission bench equally congenital-in is unrealistically abusive)
• Ashes of the Singularity (GPU-focused, High, Dx12)
• DOOM (Vulkan, Ultra, 0xAA, Async)

Synthetics:

• 3DMark FireStrike
• 3DMark FireStrike Farthermost
• 3DMark FireStrike Ultra
• 3DMark TimeSpy

For measurement tools, we're using PresentMon for Dx12/Vulkan titles and FRAPS for Dx11 titles. OnPresent is the preferred output for the states, which is then fed through our own script to calculate i% low and 0.1% low metrics (divers hither).

Power testing is taken at the wall. One case fan is continued, both SSDs, and the system is otherwise left in the "Game Bench" configuration.

rojasholdia.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2900-evga-1080-ti-ftw3-review-vs-sc2-gaming-x-xtreme-aorus?showall=1

Share this post