CUDA core count is a (if not the) primary consideration when it comes to comparing renditions of the same chip (e.g. GK110 vs GK110), though it's an almost meaningless number across different chips (e.g. GK107 vs GK110).
When you look at the different GK110 cards, the benchmarks directly correlate to the CUDA core count: 780 < Titan < 780 ti, which have 2,304, 2,688, and 2,880 CUDA cores, respectively. The Titan is obviously faster than the 780, and the 780 ti is obviously faster than the 780 and the Titan.
I understand where you are coming from with overclocking potential, but the differences are slight. Each card has good overclocking potential.
If you just want to save the money, that's all good. But there's no reason to deny the facts in order to justify getting one card over another. The 780 is a great card, but it is just a slower processor than the 780 ti and the Titan. Every benchmark I've seen confirms that, and Nvidia prices accordingly. Whether the price difference is justified to you personally is another question, but the performance numbers are there. There's no denying it.