GeForce GTX 760 Review: GK104 Shows Up (And Off) At $250

[cangelini]

With its last graphics card introduction until the end of Fall, Nvidia isn't trying to impress anyone with groundbreaking performance. Rather, the company is pulling better-than GeForce GTX 660 Ti-class frame rates to a $250 price point, creating value.

GeForce GTX 760 Review: GK104 Shows Up (And Off) At $250 : Read more

 

[toddybody]

Damn I love nVidia

 

[SiliconWars]

This doesn't look faster than the 7950 boost to me. Maybe you should check your scores and update your conclusion to reflect reality?

 

[TheBigTroll]

it isnt supposed to be faster than the 7950. they are about the same

 

[pauldh]

[quotemsg=11035777,0,1326162]This doesn't look faster than the 7950 boost to me. Maybe you should check your scores and update your conclusion to reflect reality?[/quotemsg]

Re-read the conclusion in question below. He doesn't say it is faster, he says this card will replace Don's recommendation for best $250 card and displace the 7950 Boost. ie. Don won't be recommending a $300 card that trades blows or barely beats a $250 card. If both were to end up $250, things change.

quote - "A quick reference to Best Graphics Cards For The Money: June 2013 shows that Don is currently recommending the Tahiti-based Radeon HD 7870 for $250. With almost certainty, the GeForce GTX 760 will take that honor next month, displacing the Radeon HD 7950 with Boost at $300 in the process."

 

[mapesdhs]

Chris, what is it about the GTX 580 that makes it so slow for the CUDA Fluidmark
test, given it does so well for the other CUDA tests, especially iRay and Blender?

Btw, I don't suppose you could include 580 SLI results for the game tests?
Or do you have just the one 580?


My only gripe with the 760 is the misuse of a model number which allows one to
infer it should be quicker than older cards with 'lesser' names (660, etc.) when
infact it's often slower. I really wish NVIDIA would stop releasing products that
exhibit such enormous performance overlap. Given the evolutionary nature of
GPUs, and the time that has passed since the 600s launched, one might
reasonably expect a 760 to beat the 670 too, but it never does. To me, the
price drop is the only thing it has going for it. The endless meddling with shader
numbers, clocks, bus width, etc., creates an utter muddle of performance
response depending on the game. One really has to judge based on the
individual game rather than any general product description or spec summary.
I just hope Skyrim players with 660s don't upgrade on the assumption newer
model names mean better performance, but I expect some will.

Ian.

 

[tomfreak]

GTX760 is an upgrade for GTX460/560 user and of all of that u didnt throw in those cards to bench with. Seriously?

 

[Novuake]

Nice review as per usual Chris.
Amazing performance at 250$. The 265bit memory interface does wonders for GK104.

Now I am wondering if there will even be a GTX760ti, while there is a large enough gap in the product stack, I have a feeling there is a chance there may not be a "ti" version.
Anyone know more?

 

[sarinaide]

AMD will have to release a new interim Radeon series, the existing family is not to outdated to be stretched to much longer.

 

[Mousemonkey]

For those of us who fold it ain't no show stopper is it? :lol:

 

[horaciopz]

So, maybe there will be an GTX 760 ti, for about 300 bucks with the peformance of a GTX 670... Uh? nVidia really should. This remembers the gtx 400 series and 500 series... nVidia is doing it all over again.

 

[mapesdhs]

tomfreak, two good 460s are somewhat less than a single 670 (VRAM limits not
withstanding), while two 560s will be similar since they're just oc'd 460s and
most of them had slower clocks than the best 460s. Two 560Tis can be usefully
better, matching a 670, or even matching a 680 if oc'd, but again VRAM capacity
may be an issue, though for all these older cards there were 2GB versions
available (but often with slower clocks; I have two oc'd 2GB 460s @ 800MHz
which run quite well). My gaming PC still has two 900MHz 1GB 560TIs which are
quicker than a 670 at stock, quicker than a 680 oc'd, at least when the 1GB limit
is not an issue. They certainly cope with Crysis2 at high detail well enough.

However, comparing to these newer 600/700 cards, the only older cards that
do still perform well by comparison (by that I mean the potential gain from SLI)
are the 570/580, again assuming VRAM capacity is not a factor, though the
3GB 580 definitely shines here. Indeed, two 580s SLI are almost identical in
performance to a single 780 for 3DMark11, eg. see:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5516/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-video-card-review/index4.html

Here are my 3DMark11 results for two 797MHz 1.5GB 580s:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6683648
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6683683

If you want lots more 460/560 data, see my site:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#PC

Ian.

PS. I don't include the 470/480 because they run too hot for my liking
and thus I wouldn't use either in SLI.

 

[EzioAs]

[quotemsg=11035919,0,117741]Given the evolutionary nature of GPUs, and the time that has passed since the 600s launched, one might reasonably expect a 760 to beat the 670 too, but it never does. To me, the price drop is the only thing it has going for it. [/quotemsg]
Not really. The GTX 550ti came about 1.5 year after the GTX 460 and it's still significantly slower not to mention one of the worst price to performance during it's time.

[quotemsg=11035919,0,117741]The endless meddling with shader numbers, clocks, bus width, etc., creates an utter muddle of performance response depending on the game. One really has to judge based on the individual game rather than any general product description or spec summary.[/quotemsg]
That's always been the case. You can speculate but in the end, game benchmarks is much more accurate and representative.

[quotemsg=11035919,0,117741] I just hope Skyrim players with 660s don't upgrade on the assumption newer model names mean better performance, but I expect some will.
[/quotemsg]
Sadly, there are always buyers like that. And it's not just Skyrim gamers as well.

 

[pauldh]

Interesting side note - Did anyone notice the HD 7850 gaming bundle is gone on Newegg and 7870 only comes with Crysis 3? Buying up to 7950 still nets you 4 free games.

 

[rohitbaran]

Hmm. All AMD has to do now is drop prices of 7xxx series to compete with this rebranded series from nVidia. Or maybe they can add few more games to their bundle and not drop price a all.

 

[Mousemonkey]

[quotemsg=11036070,0,117741]tomfreak, two good 460s are somewhat less than a single 670 (VRAM limits not
withstanding), while two 560s will be similar since they're just oc'd 460s and
most of them had slower clocks than the best 460s. Two 560Tis can be usefully
better, matching a 670, or even matching a 680 if oc'd, but again VRAM capacity
may be an issue, though for all these older cards there were 2GB versions
available (but often with slower clocks; I have two oc'd 2GB 460s @ 800MHz
which run quite well). My gaming PC still has two 900MHz 1GB 560TIs which are
quicker than a 670 at stock, quicker than a 680 oc'd, at least when the 1GB limit
is not an issue. They certainly cope with Crysis2 at high detail well enough.

However, comparing to these newer 600/700 cards, the only older cards that
do still perform well by comparison (by that I mean the potential gain from SLI)
are the 570/580, again assuming VRAM capacity is not a factor, though the
3GB 580 definitely shines here. Indeed, two 580s SLI are almost identical in
performance to a single 780 for 3DMark11, eg. see:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5516/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-video-card-review/index4.html

Here are my 3DMark11 results for two 797MHz 1.5GB 580s:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6683648
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6683683

If you want lots more 460/560 data, see my site:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#PC

Ian.

PS. I don't include the 470/480 because they run too hot for my liking
and thus I wouldn't use either in SLI.

[/quotemsg]
Can you post some proof of that please.

 

[EzioAs]

[quotemsg=11036109,0,29478]Interesting side note - Did anyone notice the HD 7850 gaming bundle is gone on Newegg and 7870 only comes with Crysis 3? Buying up to 7950 still nets you 4 free games.

[/quotemsg]

AMD said to Tech Report that "the promo was always advertised as a ‘while supplies last’ campaign. Sadly, some partners are running out of supply of codes."

Source: http://techreport.com/news/24998/e-tailers-running-out-of-codes-for-never-settle-reloaded-bundles

 

[mapesdhs]

[quotemsg=11036133,0,95933]Can you post some proof of that please.[/quotemsg]

I guess there must be some part of "see my site" that you didn't understand.

I could post oodles of 3DMark and other results here, but that would just clog up the
thread. I've posted some example links, go have a look and cross-check on 3dmark.com
and elsewhere.


I should add that I own about 14 different GTX 460s, including five V2 models; I
doubt anyone has tested them as much as I have. In addition I have about 35
other GPUs, including various AMD cards up to 5850 CF (not been able to obtain
anything newer yet). Most recently I've obtained five GTX 580s. A lot of people
post speculation and rumour; I go find the cards and run the tests. Friends I know
who have some newer cards then help out with data for cards like the 670, etc.
I buy newer cards when I can, but so far the latest models are still beyond my
budget via 2nd-hand sources.

Ian.

 

[mapesdhs]

EzioAs writes:
> Not really. The GTX 550ti came about 1.5 year after the GTX 460 and it's still significantly slower
> not to mention one of the worst price to performance during it's time.

That merely proves my point, ie. that model names are badly misused.


> That's always been the case. You can speculate but in the end, game benchmarks is much
> more accurate and representative.

Which again affirms what I said; the way model names/numbers are used is daft and misleading.


> Sadly, there are always buyers like that. And it's not just Skyrim gamers as well.

Indeed, but the whole business ought to be a lot less messy than it is IMO.

Ian.

 

[CaptainTom]

Idk this just doesn't impress me much because:

1) The 7950 has 50% more RAM (And you can bet your gonna need it this fall)
2) The 7950 overclocks to give you 20-30% (I have seen 40%) more performance above stock whereas the 760 basically just hits a wall no matter what you do.
3) The 7950 comes with games that can save $100+ or you can sell for $50.

Am I the only one who thinks this about the 760 and 770?

 

[kid-mid]

so basically @ $250 it's either look for HD 7950 w/ Boost or GTX 760...
+1 to nVidia..

 

[cangelini]

[quotemsg=11035919,0,117741]
Chris, what is it about the GTX 580 that makes it so slow for the CUDA Fluidmark
test, given it does so well for the other CUDA tests, especially iRay and Blender?

Btw, I don't suppose you could include 580 SLI results for the game tests?
Or do you have just the one 580?


My only gripe with the 760 is the misuse of a model number which allows one to
infer it should be quicker than older cards with 'lesser' names (660, etc.) when
infact it's often slower. I really wish NVIDIA would stop releasing products that
exhibit such enormous performance overlap. Given the evolutionary nature of
GPUs, and the time that has passed since the 600s launched, one might
reasonably expect a 760 to beat the 670 too, but it never does. To me, the
price drop is the only thing it has going for it. The endless meddling with shader
numbers, clocks, bus width, etc., creates an utter muddle of performance
response depending on the game. One really has to judge based on the
individual game rather than any general product description or spec summary.
I just hope Skyrim players with 660s don't upgrade on the assumption newer
model names mean better performance, but I expect some will.

Ian.

[/quotemsg]

I need to take a closer look at what Fluidmark is doing (Igor did all of the compute numbers), but that's a good question.

For multiples, yeah, only the one here.

The naming does make it difficult for enthusiasts to keep things straight. Both companies are guilty of it, and we've written entire stories complaining about it in the past, particularly on the mobile side. Unfortunately, there isn't enough outcry when stories like that go live to encourage change. Both companies point to each other, and nothing happens.

 

[Mousemonkey]

[quotemsg=11036135,0,622139][quotemsg=11036109,0,29478]Interesting side note - Did anyone notice the HD 7850 gaming bundle is gone on Newegg and 7870 only comes with Crysis 3? Buying up to 7950 still nets you 4 free games.

[/quotemsg]

AMD said to Tech Report that "the promo was always advertised as a ‘while supplies last’ campaign. Sadly, some partners are running out of supply of codes."

Source: http://techreport.com/news/24998/e-tailers-running-out-of-codes-for-never-settle-reloaded-bundles[/quotemsg]

[quotemsg=11036158,0,117741][quotemsg=11036133,0,95933]Can you post some proof of that please.[/quotemsg]

I guess there must be some part of "see my site" that you didn't understand.

I could post oodles of 3DMark and other results here, but that would just clog up the
thread. I've posted some example links, go have a look and cross-check on 3dmark.com
and elsewhere.


I should add that I own about 14 different GTX 460s, including five V2 models; I
doubt anyone has tested them as much as I have. In addition I have about 35
other GPUs, including various AMD cards up to 5850 CF (not been able to obtain
anything newer yet). Most recently I've obtained five GTX 580s. A lot of people
post speculation and rumour; I go find the cards and run the tests. Friends I know
who have some newer cards then help out with data for cards like the 670, etc.
I buy newer cards when I can, but so far the latest models are still beyond my
budget via 2nd-hand sources.

Ian.

[/quotemsg]
I want proof from somewhere other than your site as my experience with SLi'd 560Ti's doesn't seem to match yours but it does match other sites that are considered reputable.

 

[Mousemonkey]

[quotemsg=11036070,0,117741]tomfreak, two good 460s are somewhat less than a single 670 (VRAM limits not
withstanding), while two 560s will be similar since they're just oc'd 460s and
most of them had slower clocks than the best 460s. Two 560Tis can be usefully
better, matching a 670, or even matching a 680 if oc'd, but again VRAM capacity
may be an issue, though for all these older cards there were 2GB versions
available (but often with slower clocks; I have two oc'd 2GB 460s @ 800MHz
which run quite well). My gaming PC still has two 900MHz 1GB 560TIs which are
quicker than a 670 at stock, quicker than a 680 oc'd, at least when the 1GB limit
is not an issue. They certainly cope with Crysis2 at high detail well enough.

However, comparing to these newer 600/700 cards, the only older cards that
do still perform well by comparison (by that I mean the potential gain from SLI)
are the 570/580, again assuming VRAM capacity is not a factor, though the
3GB 580 definitely shines here. Indeed, two 580s SLI are almost identical in
performance to a single 780 for 3DMark11, eg. see:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5516/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-video-card-review/index4.html

Here are my 3DMark11 results for two 797MHz 1.5GB 580s:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6683648
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6683683

If you want lots more 460/560 data, see my site:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#PC

Ian.

PS. I don't include the 470/480 because they run too hot for my liking
and thus I wouldn't use either in SLI.

[/quotemsg]

[quotemsg=11036266,0,134065][quotemsg=11035919,0,117741]
Chris, what is it about the GTX 580 that makes it so slow for the CUDA Fluidmark
test, given it does so well for the other CUDA tests, especially iRay and Blender?

Btw, I don't suppose you could include 580 SLI results for the game tests?
Or do you have just the one 580?


My only gripe with the 760 is the misuse of a model number which allows one to
infer it should be quicker than older cards with 'lesser' names (660, etc.) when
infact it's often slower. I really wish NVIDIA would stop releasing products that
exhibit such enormous performance overlap. Given the evolutionary nature of
GPUs, and the time that has passed since the 600s launched, one might
reasonably expect a 760 to beat the 670 too, but it never does. To me, the
price drop is the only thing it has going for it. The endless meddling with shader
numbers, clocks, bus width, etc., creates an utter muddle of performance
response depending on the game. One really has to judge based on the
individual game rather than any general product description or spec summary.
I just hope Skyrim players with 660s don't upgrade on the assumption newer
model names mean better performance, but I expect some will.

Ian.

[/quotemsg]

I need to take a closer look at what Fluidmark is doing (Igor did all of the compute numbers), but that's a good question.

For multiples, yeah, only the one here.

The naming does make it difficult for enthusiasts to keep things straight. Both companies are guilty of it, and we've written entire stories complaining about it in the past, particularly on the mobile side. Unfortunately, there isn't enough outcry when stories like that go live to encourage change. Both companies point to each other, and nothing happens.[/quotemsg]

[quotemsg=11036070,0,117741]Two 560Tis can be usefully
better, matching a 670, or even matching a 680 if oc'd,[/quotemsg]

Does that sound right to you Chris?

 

[Novuake]

Yeah mapesdhs, I am definitely with mouse on this one.