OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£790VRAM:11 GBMemory bus width:352 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):250 W

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm
6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 81% of models
Score components

40%

5.6

Technical score

25%

5.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

10

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 81% of graphics cards
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

6.3

Price

▼Worse than 86%
5.6

Technical score

Technical score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components

44%

4.2

Performance

24%

6.1

Memory

12%

6.8

Power

11%

7.2

Features

5%

7.1

Design

4%

8.4

Connectivity

▼Worse than 77%
5.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 85% of models

5.6

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 85%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-arcticstorm
zotac-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-arcticstorm
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm

Technical score
Technical score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components:

44%

4.2

Performance

24%

6.1

Memory

12%

6.8

Power

11%

7.2

Features

5%

7.1

Design

4%

8.4

Connectivity

5.6
Reviews score
5.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

6.3

Price

6.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
9,995 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 9,995 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 71.6% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
2,200 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 2,200 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 79.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
18,597 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 18,597 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 64.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
9,456 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 9,456 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 62.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
11.61 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 11.61 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 71.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
11 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 11 GB of VRAM, which is less than 54.1% of graphics cards and equal to 1.4% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5X
This graphics card uses GDDR5X memory, which is older than on 83.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
352 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 352 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 88.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
484.4 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 484.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 54.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
11,008 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 11,008 MHz, which is slower than that of 82.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
250 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 250 W, which is higher than that of 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
250 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 250 W under peak load, which is higher than 57.6% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
330 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 330 W, which is higher than that of 79.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
270 W
Show more
Size
300x 148x 44 mm
Length
300 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 300 mm long, which is longer than 57.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 2.9% of graphics cards.
Height
148 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 148 mm tall, which is taller than 91.2% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,360 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,360 g, which is heavier than 68% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 160 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (352 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    352 bit vs 192 bit
  • 24 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (88 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    88 vs 64
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 40 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (224 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    224 vs 184
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 24 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (88 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    88 vs 64
  • 40 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (224 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    224 vs 184
  • 160 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (352 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    352 bit vs 192 bit
  • 8.1% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (484.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    484.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 27 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (40 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    40 °C vs 67 °C
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 35.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,620 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,620 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 vs 3
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • 22.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models

    5.6

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.6 vs 7.2
  • 14.5% worse value for money
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.48 vs 7.4).
    6.48 vs 7.41
  • 51.9% more expensive
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm is more expensive than the average graphics card (£790 vs £520).
    £790 vs £520
  • 35.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,620 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,620 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 21.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,506 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,506 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    May 2017
    2017 vs 2023
  • 48.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (11.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    11.61 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 76% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (2,200 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    2,200 points vs 9,148 points
  • 32.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (9,995 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    9,995 points vs 14,779 points
  • 17.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (18,597 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    18,597 points vs 22,638 points
  • 99.4% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.18 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 11.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (142.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    142.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 42.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (11,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    11,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 21.4% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,376 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,376 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 1 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (11 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    11 GB vs 12 GB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 60.2% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (471 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    471 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 47.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (12,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    12,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 50% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (330 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    330 W vs 220 W
  • 16.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (250 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    250 W vs 215 W
  • 33.3% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (16 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    16 W vs 12 W
  • 23 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (148 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    148 mm vs 125 mm
  • 17.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (300 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    300 mm vs 282.2 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
GGF Events
≈ estimated
11/07/2017
Hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures and overclocking
Verdict
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm runs cool and is fairly priced, but its overclocking and RGB control disappointed.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm

  • Exceptional thermal performance with load temperatures often staying under 40°C
  • Pre-installed full-coverage water block simplifies integration for custom liquid cooling loops
  • High-quality build and premium aesthetics featuring customizable RGB lighting
  • Strong gaming performance capable of handling 4K Ultra settings in various titles
  • Consistent clock speeds due to the lack of thermal throttling under liquid cooling

What customers don't like about ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm

  • Water block features some aluminum components, raising concerns about potential galvanic corrosion in loops with copper radiators
  • Large physical footprint and 'mini' version may still be too large for many ITX cases
  • Limited overclocking ceiling despite the superior cooling, often hitting voltage limits before thermal ones
  • Significant price premium compared to standard air-cooled 1080 Ti models
  • Inflexible port placement on the water block can complicate tubing routes in certain case layouts

Verdict

The Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 Ti ArcticStorm is a high-performance enthusiast graphics card featuring 3,584 CUDA cores, 11GB of GDDR5X memory on a 352-bit bus, and factory-overclocked speeds of 1506 MHz base and 1620 MHz boost. Its defining characteristic is the pre-installed full-coverage waterblock with 0.3mm micro-channels and SPECTRA RGB lighting, designed for integration into custom liquid-cooling loops. Main pros include exceptional thermal management that keeps temperatures significantly lower than air-cooled models, a robust 16+2 power phase for high overclocking headroom, and a durable metal backplate. However, primary cons include the requirement for a separate existing liquid-cooling setup, its massive physical footprint requiring two slots and significant case length, and the lack of modern features like dedicated ray tracing hardware found in newer generations.

Compare ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Arcticstorm and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found