GTX780ti still worth thinking of in 2017?

[Necruss]

Hi guys,
friend asked me for help. There is a opportunity to buy refurbished GTX780ti from Asus (DCUII) for a good price - is this card still a good option for gaming in 1080p? I've heard that NVidia does not support Kepler cards anymore and if to choose from the older tech it is better to go for GCN cards from AMD. Is this true?
Rest of the config: i5 4460, 16g ddr3, PSU 650W
I will be very grateful for pieces of advice.
Other options are r9 280x, r9 380x, gtx 960. Or gtx 970 / gtx 1060 3g / RX470 - last 3 for additional money, which he would not prefer to use.

 

[genthug]

Depends entirely on what "a good price" is, who your friend is buying it from, if there is any type of warranty on it. Would need that information to evaluate whether or not it's worth it. The card is max 3.5 years old at this point, so that's also something to consider.

 

[Necruss]

Depends entirely on what "a good price" is, who your friend is buying it from, if there is any type of warranty on it. Would need that information to evaluate whether or not it's worth it. The card is max 3.5 years old at this point, so that's also something to consider.

The guy who is selling this says that the cards are from the Asus stock - never used. They were to be sent as warranty replacements. Now they are cleaning the storage. He is giving 30 days of warranty for it.

By "good price" I meant he can also buy the cards mentioned below in more or less the same price.

 

[JoSTAR]

Considering 780 Ti was the top dog a couple years back and the supposed 1440p sweet spot you'll probably still be fine with most modern games running well at 1080p and good settings. Just take into consideration on how games will be in the near future with 1440p/4K optimization which I'm sure 780 Ti can still properly handle but not as well as let's say the newer cards that came out such as the GTX 1000 series and the RX 400/500 series. If you can get it for a great price (around 150-180 ish max) then I would probably do it. Just keep in mind it is an old card so you're taking a risk of the supposed longevity of it and the performance hits that might happen with some games. Safest way to consider this is by looking at the current console specs. A PS4 is around 1.84 Tflops while the 780 Ti is around 5.04 Tflops which is a humongous difference considering MOST developers will be making games meant with console in mind as well as PC extra options. If a game can run at 30/60 frames with those PS4 specs then you'll be perfect for 1080p/60 on most modern games now. It might be a lame comparison but it's honestly perfectly valid as most games have to run with console in mind. Considering Clockrates and memory 780 Ti is a bit lacking compared to the newer cards which have clock rates of over 1300 Mhz easy and memory ranging from 4-8 GB nowadays; which will ultimately affect it. However 3GB should be enough for your needs and the other specs of the 780 Ti still back it up as a pretty tough card still.

 

[genthug]

The 780Ti, and 970 are in essentially the same performance bracket. The 1060 3G and 470 will be in a slightly higher bracket, but if I were to rank which ones I would go with based off that information I'd say 1060>470>970>780Ti and even with NVidia stopping driver updates and support for Kepler cards, I wouldn't choose a 280x, 380x, or 960 over a 780Ti.

I'd put the newest ones first obviously because they will be bought new, have full warranties on them, have the newest architecture, etc. etc., then the 780Ti as it is the highest in performance of the remaining choices. If it is a working a 780Ti, and your friend does not mind having a 30 day warranty over the other warranties, and does not mind the older architecture, it's still a good GPU for 1080p.

Side note: Comparing console devving to PC devving is apples to oranges. You need to dev on PCs for a wide variety of everybody playing the game. You need to dev on consoles for a single product: the console it is going on to. Much easier to dev for when you know exactly what hardware you have to work with. Consoles also have predetermined options whereas PCs have the ability to determine which options you want on and off.

 

[sizzling]

My concern is the 3gb VRAM. I have a 780 and game at 1080p. I have found several games now that can use 3gb or more which means I have to turn down settings. As soon as you hit the VRAM limit you get stuttering. Ok this isn't a major issue but it shows the VRAM is already the limiting factor, what will it be like in another year or two. It would have to be dirt cheap for me to buy it, even then I probably wouldn't.

Also do you have a good quality 609w PSU?

 

[Necruss]

My concern is the 3gb VRAM. I have a 780 and game at 1080p. I have found several games now that can use 3gb or more which means I have to turn down settings. As soon as you hit the VRAM limit you get stuttering. Ok this isn't a major issue but it shows the VRAM is already the limiting factor, what will it be like in another year or two. It would have to be dirt cheap for me to buy it, even then I probably wouldn't.

Also do you have a good quality 609w PSU?

Corsair RM650

 

[genthug]

The concern over VRAM here is pretty null. The other options on the table are maxed at 4GB of VRAM, and that's only on the 380x and 470. The 970 has 3.5 of "useful" VRAM, the 1060 only has 3 as well, and as I mentioned previously I would not get a 380x over a 780Ti. If we were talking about different cards, I would say that's a 100% valid concern, but there isn't much wiggle room with what was placed on the table.

It would be very nice to know what "additional money" is, as well. If it's $50+ for a 3G 1060 or 470 then I can see the point of getting the 780Ti, but if it's $15-20 more then I honestly cannot see it, the added warranty alone (personally) would be worth that 15-20 not to mention the perks of buying new over buying old architecture. I know that currently, 3G 1060s start at $190, while the 470s are starting at $150. And those are guaranteed to be brand new. So, I would agree with sizzling on this to be completely honest. Unless your friend is getting the card for like... $115-120 or lower, I would just get a lower end 470 and call it a day (I am assuming this will be bought in the US, though).

 

[Necruss]

The concern over VRAM here is pretty null. The other options on the table are maxed at 4GB of VRAM, and that's only on the 380x and 470. The 970 has 3.5 of "useful" VRAM, the 1060 only has 3 as well, and as I mentioned previously I would not get a 380x over a 780Ti. If we were talking about different cards, I would say that's a 100% valid concern, but there isn't much wiggle room with what was placed on the table.

It would be very nice to know what "additional money" is, as well. If it's $50+ for a 3G 1060 or 470 then I can see the point of getting the 780Ti, but if it's $15-20 more then I honestly cannot see it, the added warranty alone (personally) would be worth that 15-20 not to mention the perks of buying new over buying old architecture. I know that currently, 3G 1060s start at $190, while the 470s are starting at $150. And those are guaranteed to be brand new. So, I would agree with sizzling on this to be completely honest. Unless your friend is getting the card for like... $115-120 or lower, I would just get a lower end 470 and call it a day (I am assuming this will be bought in the US, though).

In general I know that currently the best card for gaimg at 1080p is 1060 6g. But it is too expensive.
Going into details - the prices are:
r9 280x (2hand, no warranty) - ~125$
r9 380x (2hand, some warranty) - ~150$
gtx960 (2hand, some warranty) - ~130$
GTX780ti (detailed above) - ~170$
GTX 970 (2hand, some warranty) - ~200$
GTX 1060 3g (new) - ~225$
RX 470 4g (new) - ~225$
GTX 1060 6g (new) - ~275$
RX480 8g (new) - ~270$

The prices are of course the average ones for today. I was considering only non reference cards excluding the cheapest mini versions from f.e. Zotac or Gigabyte.
Now you see the whole scope. The intention is to be close to 150 - 170$.

 

[genthug]

I apologize, but I just need to confirm: From those prices, I gather that you are not buying in the US?

 

[Necruss]

I apologize, but I just need to confirm: From those prices, I gather that you are not buying in the US?

Nope. Poland. But I tried to convert prices to USD

 

[genthug]

Ahhhh okay that does make more sense. I apologize, it was a question I should've asked much much sooner. Given those prices... I would ultimately go for the 780Ti if those were my options, and that was my budget.

 

[Necruss]

Ahhhh okay that does make more sense. I apologize, it was a question I should've asked much much sooner. Given those prices... I would ultimately go for the 780Ti if those were my options, and that was my budget.

Thanks man.
This is what I thought also.
The other solution is to wait for some interesting offer on the aftermarket for GTX970. Sometimes there are offers on Allegro (polish "e-bay like" auction website) and you can buy 970 for arround 170 - 180$ but you need to be lucky. And quick
Biggest pro for 970 is the warranty. The pro for 780ti is that these are new (never used) cards - so they should serve for some years.

 

[Necruss]

Thanks a lot for all the answers.

 

[sizzling]

The concern over VRAM here is pretty null. The other options on the table are maxed at 4GB of VRAM, and that's only on the 380x and 470. The 970 has 3.5 of "useful" VRAM, the 1060 only has 3 as well, and as I mentioned previously I would not get a 380x over a 780Ti. If we were talking about different cards, I would say that's a 100% valid concern, but there isn't much wiggle room with what was placed on the table.).

Its not that clear cut, from the reviews I have looked at more modern GPU's are more efficient in their use of VRAM, so a 3Gb 1060 is not comparable to a 3Gb 780Ti in amount of VRAM that will actually be used in the same game. I also wouldn't buy a 1060 3gb as while I haven't seen any reviews of it hitting 3gb @ 1080p yet its has no headroom for the future, the 480 looks a much better option in my view at this price point. As I say I have hit 3Gb on the weaker 780 in several games @ 1080p, its easily fixed by dropping settings but it is a limiting factor already.

As for the 970 and the claimed 3.5Gb, all the independent reviews carried out by what I would call reputable sources couldn't recreate the claimed issues in their testing. It seemed to be a lot of hot air with no substance.

 

[Necruss]

The concern over VRAM here is pretty null. The other options on the table are maxed at 4GB of VRAM, and that's only on the 380x and 470. The 970 has 3.5 of "useful" VRAM, the 1060 only has 3 as well, and as I mentioned previously I would not get a 380x over a 780Ti. If we were talking about different cards, I would say that's a 100% valid concern, but there isn't much wiggle room with what was placed on the table.).

Its not that clear cut, from the reviews I have looked at more modern GPU's are more efficient in their use of VRAM, so a 3Gb 1060 is not comparable to a 3Gb 780Ti in amount of VRAM that will actually be used in the same game. I also wouldn't buy a 1060 3gb as while I haven't seen any reviews of it hitting 3gb @ 1080p yet its has no headroom for the future, the 480 looks a much better option in my view at this price point. As I say I have hit 3Gb on the weaker 780 in several games @ 1080p, its easily fixed by dropping settings but it is a limiting factor already.

As for the 970 and the claimed 3.5Gb, all the independent reviews carried out by what I would call reputable sources couldn't recreate the claimed issues in their testing. It seemed to be a lot of hot air with no substance.

Yes, Allocation of the VRam by the games is quite interesting. I was testing Fallout 4 on GTX770 2G and the HWInfo had shown me, that in the max point 1,9G of the Vram was used. Later on I run the same game on the same settings using GTX780, which had 3g of Vram, and the HWInfo had shown that 2,4G of Vram was used in the max point.
Is it possible that games are intelligently allocating the textures in Vram depending on the card we have?

 

[sizzling]

The concern over VRAM here is pretty null. The other options on the table are maxed at 4GB of VRAM, and that's only on the 380x and 470. The 970 has 3.5 of "useful" VRAM, the 1060 only has 3 as well, and as I mentioned previously I would not get a 380x over a 780Ti. If we were talking about different cards, I would say that's a 100% valid concern, but there isn't much wiggle room with what was placed on the table.).

Its not that clear cut, from the reviews I have looked at more modern GPU's are more efficient in their use of VRAM, so a 3Gb 1060 is not comparable to a 3Gb 780Ti in amount of VRAM that will actually be used in the same game. I also wouldn't buy a 1060 3gb as while I haven't seen any reviews of it hitting 3gb @ 1080p yet its has no headroom for the future, the 480 looks a much better option in my view at this price point. As I say I have hit 3Gb on the weaker 780 in several games @ 1080p, its easily fixed by dropping settings but it is a limiting factor already.

As for the 970 and the claimed 3.5Gb, all the independent reviews carried out by what I would call reputable sources couldn't recreate the claimed issues in their testing. It seemed to be a lot of hot air with no substance.

Yes, Allocation of the VRam by the games is quite interesting. I was testing Fallout 4 on GTX770 2G and the HWInfo had shown me, that in the max point 1,9G of the Vram was used. Later on I run the same game on the same settings using GTX780, which had 3g of Vram, and the HWInfo had shown that 2,4G of Vram was used in the max point.
Is it possible that games are intelligently allocating the textures in Vram depending on the card we have?

Not quite the same thing. Yes games will use more when more is available. However the issue I am thinking of is comparing different generations and the minimum amount of VRAM needed, I read a good article on this about 6 months ago that showed the minimum needed was lower on newer cards indicating they appear more efficient in how they use VRAM.

 

[Necruss]

The concern over VRAM here is pretty null. The other options on the table are maxed at 4GB of VRAM, and that's only on the 380x and 470. The 970 has 3.5 of "useful" VRAM, the 1060 only has 3 as well, and as I mentioned previously I would not get a 380x over a 780Ti. If we were talking about different cards, I would say that's a 100% valid concern, but there isn't much wiggle room with what was placed on the table.).

Its not that clear cut, from the reviews I have looked at more modern GPU's are more efficient in their use of VRAM, so a 3Gb 1060 is not comparable to a 3Gb 780Ti in amount of VRAM that will actually be used in the same game. I also wouldn't buy a 1060 3gb as while I haven't seen any reviews of it hitting 3gb @ 1080p yet its has no headroom for the future, the 480 looks a much better option in my view at this price point. As I say I have hit 3Gb on the weaker 780 in several games @ 1080p, its easily fixed by dropping settings but it is a limiting factor already.

As for the 970 and the claimed 3.5Gb, all the independent reviews carried out by what I would call reputable sources couldn't recreate the claimed issues in their testing. It seemed to be a lot of hot air with no substance.

Yes, Allocation of the VRam by the games is quite interesting. I was testing Fallout 4 on GTX770 2G and the HWInfo had shown me, that in the max point 1,9G of the Vram was used. Later on I run the same game on the same settings using GTX780, which had 3g of Vram, and the HWInfo had shown that 2,4G of Vram was used in the max point.
Is it possible that games are intelligently allocating the textures in Vram depending on the card we have?

Not quite the same thing. Yes games will use more when more is available. However the issue I am thinking of is comparing different generations and the minimum amount of VRAM needed, I read a good article on this about 6 months ago that showed the minimum needed was lower on newer cards indicating they appear more efficient in how they use VRAM.

So you are suggesting that 3g of vram on GTX780ti maybe not the same as 3g of vram on GTX1060. Did I understood correctly? Maybe this is connected with memory bandwith (384bit vs 192bit)?

 

[genthug]

If at all possible, would you be able to re-find said article? Would be nice to read.