Hello and welcome to my Nidecker Gamma review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Gamma as an all-mountain-freestyle snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Gamma a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Nidecker Gamma
Price: $519
Style: All-Mountain-Freestyle
Flex Rating: Mid-Soft
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 83.9/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain-Freestyle Boards
Of the 29 current model all-mountain freestyle snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Gamma ranked 20th out of 29
Overview of the Gamma's Specs
Check out the tables for the Gamma's specs and available sizes.
Specs
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN-FREESTYLE
PRICE:
$519 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID CAMBER
HYBRID Camber - Nidecker's "Surfy Camrock".
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Centered
BASE:
SINTERED | Nidecker's "N-7000"
weight:
Felt normal
Camber Height:
9mm!
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
153 | 252 | 120-175 | 55-80 |
157 | 256 | 145-200 | 65-90 |
159W | 266 | 175+ | 80+ |
Who is the Gamma Best Suited To?
The Gamma is best suited to anyone looking to tear up the whole resort, most ideally suited to someone who wants to get freestyle over the whole mountain, but at times also wants to ride with a bit of speed under them or lay down some moderately high speed carves.
Could definitely be a one-board-quiver for the right rider, assuming you don't see a lot of deep powder. Would handle shallower, occasional powder fine, but probably going to be a back-leg-burner in the deeper stuff.
Not for beginners, but not a board that's super challenging to ride or anything, so intermediate and up.
The Gamma in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Gamma is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Nidecker Gamma 2024, 157 (256mm waist width)
Date: February 10, 2023
Conditions
Cloudy. Low cloud. Vis pretty bad at times. Like 40% in the worst spots and up to 75% in best.
Temprature 32°F (0°C). With wind chill was 21°F (-6°C) but wind eased by afternoon and was more like 30°F (-1°C) with wind.
24hr snow: 0" (0cm)
48hr snow: 2" (2cm)
7 day snow: 20" (50cm)
On groomer: Medium firm to start with but then got somewhat slushy as day went on. There were some harder patches too.
Off groomer: A little crunchy in places but overall doable.
Set up
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 21.3" (540mm)
Stance Setback: Centered
Width at Inserts: 266.5mm (10.5")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 180lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 DC Judge
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 6lbs 10oz (3000 grams)
Weight per cm: 19.11 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.71 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 250 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 & 2024 models. The Gamma was marginally over average weight on scales, felt normal on snow.
Powder
We had no powder on the day to test in, but based on feel and specs, I would say it would be average in powder. It has a little bit of rocker in the profile which will help with float, but there's not much else to help it with powder float.
Carving & Turning
Carving: I found the Gamma to be a really decent carver. Nothing super epic but can dig in the edge and hold it pretty well, even at moderately high speeds.
Ease of Turning/Slashing: It's pretty easy to initiate turns on and you can release the tail and slash pretty easily as well.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: I found I could get it going pretty quickly edge-to-edge at slow speeds. It wasn't effortless, but didn't take too much effort to get it flicking between edges.
Catchiness: Not completely catch-free, but also not something I would call catchy. Normal/average in this respect.
Speed
It's not an out and out bomber, but it's pretty stable at moderately fast speeds.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: Takes a bit to get thrown off your line in crud, but it's not a crud/chunder crusher. Decently easy to correct when you are knocked around a bit on it.
Trees/Bumps: Nice and quick for weaving, especially once you put in some energy.
Jumps
Really liked this board for jumps. It had a good balance of all the factors that lead to a good jumping board.
Pop: Pop was decently easy to access. Not effortless but didn't have to put too much weight into it to access it. Then there was a little more you could get out of it, when winding it up. Not epic total pop, but decent enough.
Approach: Strikes a great balance between stability and the ability to speed check/adjust your line when necessary.
Landing: A good amount of give on landings, making it not too unforgiving of errors, and could handle a tail heavy landing well. Wasn't quite as much of a stomper as the Gamma APX, which I also rode the same day, but still good stable landings.
Side-hits: I preferred this to the APX version on side hits. Not quite as good in terms of effortless agility as my control board (Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker) but when you attacked them a little more aggressively, with a little more purpose, it was really fun. Pop was pretty easy to access too, which I like to have for side hits.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Medium jumps were the sweet spot but would definitely be able to handle bigger jumps, and all good for small jumps too.
Switch
Felt great to ride switch, which was no surprise. Transitions to switch felt good too. Maybe not as effortless in transitions as some, but so long as you were focused enough, it was great with transitions, setting up and landing switch for spins and for riding switch in general.
Spins
Decently easy to access pop, wasn't difficult to get spins around and felt fine setting up and landing switch. So all round, felt good to spin on.
Jibbing
Not the ideal jibbing board, IMO, mostly because I prefer something softer and even easier to maneuver, not that it was hard to maneuver, but for a strong jibber, shouldn't be an issue to jib with.
Butters
You had to put a bit of weight in to press tip and tail - not effortless - but you didn't have to throw everything into it to get it pressing and lock in presses, or anything.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Jumps | 4 | 16/20 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Turns | 4 | 8/10 |
| Switch | 5 | 10/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Spins | 4 | 8/10 |
| Butters | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Jibbing | 3 | 3/5 |
| Crud etc | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Trees | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Pow | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 83.9/100 |
Nidecker's Gamma was a new board for 2024 (which had an early release in the late 22/23 season). I found it super fun and versatile, able to handle a range of conditions well and strikes a great balance for being something you can get a little aggressive on when you want to and a little playful when you want to.
No real weaknesses apart from deeper powder and, at least for me, not the ideal jibber.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Gamma, or if you are ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other all-mountain-freestyle snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Gamma compares to other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards, then check out the next link.
May i ask, as the all mountain board compare to the nidecker gamma and salomon assassin(24/25) , which one is more stiff or aggressive.
Hi Jialong, thanks for your message.
We haven’t tested the Assassin since it changed for the 24-25 model, so not sure if its the same with the 24-25 Assassin, but compared to the previous Assassins, I personally found the Gamma to be a little stiffer and did better with a bit more of an aggressive approach vs the Assassin. Part of that might be weight, with the Assassin being lighter, but in my experience the Gamma was also a little stiffer.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate. It’s me again. Aleays a pleasure to watch your review and have your reply!
My foot size is 26cm. I tried the supermatic M size which the upper limit should be 26cm. However the binding is not lengthy enough and i always step on the highback instead of the roller and therefore the entry is not smooth. Nidecker official also said in between sizes, go for bigger one. Therefore i think I could go for L size?
Nidecker recommended L binding should be paired with Gamma 157cm.
My weight is 156lb. I found the recommended weight of 157cm is different for 2024 and 2025 versions. Should I go for 2024 gamma 157cm (weight range 132-176lb)? Considering supermatic has large heel cup and 2024 is cheaper.
Thanks for your reply again!
Hi MH.
Sorry, the update for this review got a little messy, as the 2024 catalog had the Gamma (and Gamma APXs) specs wrong and when I compared them, things got confused. I have now updated the sizing table. The 2024 and 2025 models are actually identical. The weight recommendations was just an adjustments of the recommendations on Nidecker’s part. The board isn’t actually different though. In any case I wouldn’t put all my stock into weight recommendations. I can give you my opinion on what size to go with, if you’d like but if you could also let me know your height, that would be great. While weight and foot size are more important than height, IMO, I still like to take height into account, for the leverage factor.
If the 153 is looking like the better size for you, I can run some calculations on how the L Supermatic would fit on it.
Hi Nate. My footsize 26cm. height 180cm, weight around 156lb (underweight for my height, hoping to gain some weight in near future).
First of all thanks for your update on the size table. Nidecker website also messed up. For both Gamma and Gamma APX, the weight recommendations for 157cm in kg and lb are not tallied, i.e. 70-85kg and 165lb – 187lb (should be either 80kg or 154lb). I had informed them to make the clarification.
I had studied your guide on snowboard width. As my footsize is 260mm, the maximum overhang (10mm total) would give a min. width of 250mm and maximum underhang (4mm total) would give a max. width of 264mm, both width at binding inserts.
The width of binding inserts for 153 and 157cm are 261 and 266mm respectively.
But I am confused that Nidecker recommended Gamma 153 / M binding and 157 / L binding, isn’t the size of binding should have less significance than footsize on snowboard width?
If binding size is less significant, and the weight range of 157cm is 165lb+, then it seems 153cm is a better option. Am I correct?
Hi MH
I would go 153 for you. In terms of getting the L Supermatic on there, you should be fine. The only real thing with binding length vs board width, is if the bindings are overhanging the edges – boot overhang is fine, but with binding overhang, the overhang is closer to the snow, so more likely to drag. That said, it’s only an issue if it’s overhanging at the baseplate and often the footbed is ramped up, so a little bit of footbed overhang is fine – but still just a little bit. But the Supermatic L has a baseplate length of 240mm, footbed length of 251mm when at it’s shortest and can extend out to 264mm. Given you’re on the lower end for the L, you won’t need or want to extend it all the way out, so you should be fine on the width of the 153.
Another consideration for binding to board sizing is boot centering. Sometimes a binding will fit on the board, but not in a way that you can get your boots centered (equal overhang on toe and heel), but I don’t forsee you having issues with that with the L on the 153. You can run Nidecker’s binding disc vertically to enable you to adjust it’s position across the board. No guarantees, but I’d say you’ll be fine.
The last consideration in terms of sizing is more about if your binding is too short for the board’s width. This isn’t a big factor (and in your case will be a non-factor) but if the bindings baseplate and footbed underhang the edges of the board too much, it can reduce ease of leverage. Not to the same extent, IMO, as when the board is too wide for feet, but I would say it has some impact. In your case, that won’t be an issue, if you go L Supermatic on the 153 Gamma.
Thanks for your calculation!
I have bought the gamma 153 and supermatic L.
Hoping to have some fun in this winter.
You’re very welcome MH. Hope you have a great season! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi Nate.
Higher beginner progressing to lower intermediate. Looking for a board that can lay some good carves and hit small jumps. Been comparing Jones Mountain Twin, Nidecker Gamma and Nidecker Alpha. Seems Alpha is a better carver but worry that the directional shape and setback of Alpha will be a bit more advanced for me. And thinking that a twin would be easier for me to practice both sides for better foundation. Spent my time mostly on groomers than at park. Would Gamma too park board oriented or it would suit me? Thanks your review and opinion!
Hi MH, thanks for your message.
I’ve only ridden the Alpha APX, not the regular Alpha, but even though the regular Alpha should be a little easier going than the APX version, I think it would be a bit too much of a stretch. Even the Gamma and Mountain Twin a bit of a stretch for high end beginner/low intermediate, IMO, but I would say better options than the Alpha. It’s unlikely you’ll feel the Gamma too freestyle oriented. Except in powder, it can handle the whole mountain really well and particularly if your lower intermediate, should provide you with plenty of stability and carveability. The Mountain Twin as well, if you went that way. Another thing to note that while the Alpha APX is, in my opinion, a better carver than the Gamma, that doesn’t make it easier to carve with.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your reply!
So between mountain twin, alpha and gamma, I will go for gamma.
By the way, considering my criterion and preferences, do you have any better suggestions?
Hey Nate was there much of a difference trees/bumps vs the gamma apx?
Hi Tim
Not a huge difference. I slightly preferred this, just because you didn’t have to put as much into it. With both, I found you could get them edge-to-edge pretty quickly, but neither was effortless. So they go well, IMO, in trees, but you’ve got to put the energy in. Slightly less energy needed for this one vs the APX model.