Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Review: Titan’s Baby Brother Is Born

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]from what you're telling me the 7970 GHz is 350 Euros, while the 780 is 700? If that's the case I think the choice is clear...might be time to move:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] =BESTMATCH... or buy a 7970.[/citation]

The 7970 Ghz is 400 Euros with 4 AAA games and a 3 years warranty, unfortunately newegg does not ship to Europe and even if they do i will still have to pay VAT + Customs on arrival unless i go and pick it up myself and bring it in on a commercial airline with me, then only i will not have to pay anything extra to bring it in, so it is pointless.

But yes if the GTX 770 does not bring anything new to the pricing picture, then the value of the 7970 Ghz package with the games here in Europe makes picking up a 7970 over a GTX 780 a no-brainer.

All AMD needs to do in response to turn the table on nVidia's Pricing/Marketing gimmicks is to release their CrossFire driver fix and they will be delivering the best value yet one more time, even if that does not happen, i think a 7970 Ghz can sustain me for a year or so until i can buy much more performance in NextGen cards with a 500 Euros or less price point :)
 
Right now you can get 2 GTX 680's @ newegg for $860. ~20%performance drop in multi gpu (before overclocking that is) 34% cheaper and the when you overclock the performance difference diminishes even more in favor of the 680's; what a racket.
 

Titan is a niche product anyway. And it still has the floating-point advantage over the GTX 780, so it does remain superior for those kinds of compute tasks.
 
[citation][nom]Luis Oriz[/nom]Right now you can get 2 GTX 680's @ newegg for $860. ~20%performance drop in multi gpu (before overclocking that is) 34% cheaper and the when you overclock the performance difference diminishes even more in favor of the 680's; what a racket.[/citation]

Exactly. I'm actually feeling good about my 680 purchase last year. But now I'm moving up to a 2560x1440 monitor and need a second one. A 50-60% plus performance boost over a single 780 (depending on the game) for a ~40% increase in cost. That's a positive net return on investment, not to mention it completely obliterates the Titan for the same amount of money.
 
[citation][nom]neahcrow[/nom]The other thing that boggles my mind when talking about just gaming- who cares if AMD is a better "value" if the gameplay isn't smooth with dropped/grunt frames. That is a complete dealbreaker for me and more important than raw FPS per dollar.[/citation]

I have finally come to that conclusion........I can brag till I'm blue in the face about my 3dmark score.....but i just get pissed off and sad when it comes to actual gaming on two HD7970's in crossfire.
 
So here is my point of view you get a game you max the settings turn on vsync you spend 400 dollers on a 7970 and get 60 frames than get a gtx 780 for 650 dollers and get 60 frames too you get almost 1000 dollers for the gtx titan and get 60 frames also so um........... Ill go buy the 7970...specially since the 7000 series drivers have been very interestingly impressive..... But hey nvidia nice card just sooo much money.
 
I have noticed no one has mentioned the fact that all the bench marks are at a 2560x1440 resolution. To my knowledge, few gamers play at this resolutions. In fact, few people own a monitor that can even support it. It's comical to quibble over the price of the card, when no one has mentioned the price of a monitor that can support 2560x1440. The cheapest capable monitor is about on par with the GTX 780 itself! Above all this, remember that game producers cater to the console market before the PC market. That means most games are produced with textures to optimally be viewed at 720p or 1080p tops. In other words, the eye candy isn't going to magically improve at 2560x1440. Also consider that most games are so furious in action, that you don't get a lot of time to appreciate the eye candy anyway. If you do, you're dead. Bottom line, playing a game at 2560x1440 is sacrificing frame rate for no good reason. I would have preferred a review that didn't just focus on raw power, but one where we could see how the cards perform under real world resolutions. Often, you will get some real surprises depending on the driver optimization.




 


I'd say you're looking at this the wrong way. You do realize that if someone spends $500+ on a video card, there's a higher chance he/she is utilizing it in a high-res monitor (2560x1440) or a triple screen setup? That's why, 2560x1440 review gets more love than 1080p. Plus, if the cards can perform this good at such high-res, chances are, it'll get 60+ fps most of the time in 1080p.

Also, personally, I'd say it's good that 2560x1440 becomes the norm for benches. I think most of us has been wishing for 2560x1440 becomes cheaper and/or even higher res screen comes to the desktop market, but even if they do happen in the future (hopefully, shortly), there's no guarantee we'll actually enjoy the higher res since it's quite demanding and if we keep benchmarking base on 1080p, only $400+ cards can satisfy gamers (and not everybody is willing to spend that much on a video card).

I'll say this though, I think the fact that we're still seeing high-end cards can still get eat up by graphics intensive games at 1080p shows just how slow (low?) the performance improvements are.

(Oh, and mobile displays with high PPI sucks, since desktop monitor doesn't get such things anymore).
 
Awesome review! Great work Chris! This is how GPU's should be reviewed. Single and Multi card configurations, with a good mixture of new and old games that push the GPU setup. All compared against appropriate cards. Thankyou so much for this.
Now how much are they going to flog these for in the AU....
 
[citation][nom]Maurice Buddingh[/nom]I have noticed no one has mentioned the fact that all the bench marks are at a 2560x1440 resolution. To my knowledge, few gamers play at this resolutions. In fact, few people own a monitor that can even support it.[/citation]
To my knowledge few people own a graphics configuration with GTX 780 level performance.

[citation][nom]Maurice Buddingh[/nom]It's comical to quibble over the price of the card, when no one has mentioned the price of a monitor that can support 2560x1440. The cheapest capable monitor is about on par with the GTX 780 itself![/citation]
You can get cheap 27" 2560x1440 monitors for $300-$400. Granted you'll have to make some sacrifices, cheap stand, glossy plastic exterior, poor connectivity options, etc. But at least the option is there for those who are willing to make those sacrifices.

[citation][nom]Maurice Buddingh[/nom]Above all this, remember that game producers cater to the console market before the PC market. That means most games are produced with textures to optimally be viewed at 720p or 1080p tops. In other words, the eye candy isn't going to magically improve at 2560x1440.[/citation]
Most decent console ports include additional graphics enhancements such as high res textures and support for DX11 features. A well done console port can look considerably better than its console equivalent. Take Bioshock Infinite for example.

[citation][nom]Maurice Buddingh[/nom]Bottom line, playing a game at 2560x1440 is sacrificing frame rate for no good reason.[/citation]
Really? Would you say the same applies for progressively lower resolutions? If you have the performance headroom to run games at higher resolutions, why wouldn't you?

[citation][nom]Maurice Buddingh[/nom]I would have preferred a review that didn't just focus on raw power, but one where we could see how the cards perform under real world resolutions. Often, you will get some real surprises depending on the driver optimization.[/citation]
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review
 
Cmon people, if nvidia had launched titan as GTX680 in the beginning. AMD would go bust becuase NO ONE will buy the 7970 by then.

So i say, thank you nvidia for making the mistake and kept AMD rocking.
 
One thing that struck me was some of the new technologies. It was nice to see Nvidia trying out new things, whether good or bad, they still are out there pushing the envelope.

One of the more impressive new pieces was the Reason Flags, which tell you exactly which parameter of the overclock was creating a bottleneck. Using that data, it's possible to identify and correct the guilty parameter, whether it be the temperature, power limit, voltage limit, overvoltage, or utilization limit to ensure that overclocks are being maximized. Hardware Canucks spent quite a bit of their review on overclocking, the new customized fan curve, and how to use the Reason Flags.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61310-nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review-3.html
 
Little disappointed 7990 didnt have a solution to fix the short comings of multi gpu board still routing for amd thou 9000 series will be better than 7990 and most likely 780 If I were a betting man
 
I'd say you're looking at this the wrong way. You do realize that if someone spends $500+ on a video card, there's a higher chance he/she is utilizing it in a high-res monitor (2560x1440) or a triple screen setup? That's why, 2560x1440 review gets more love than 1080p. Plus, if the cards can perform this good at such high-res, chances are, it'll get 60+ fps most of the time in 1080p.

Also, personally, I'd say it's good that 2560x1440 becomes the norm for benches. I think most of us has been wishing for 2560x1440 becomes cheaper and/or even higher res screen comes to the desktop market, but even if they do happen in the future (hopefully, shortly), there's no guarantee we'll actually enjoy the higher res since it's quite demanding and if we keep benchmarking base on 1080p, only $400+ cards can satisfy gamers (and not everybody is willing to spend that much on a video card).

I'll say this though, I think the fact that we're still seeing high-end cards can still get eat up by graphics intensive games at 1080p shows just how slow (low?) the performance improvements are.

(Oh, and mobile displays with high PPI sucks, since desktop monitor doesn't get such things anymore).
Click to expand...

I actually agree with much of what you say. And yes it does occur to me that there are folk who buy a high end card to complement their high end monitor that supports 2560x1440. Having said that, since 2008, there are a lot less of them - LOL! Unfortunately, the number of PC gamers who have to make hard choices around how they spend their hard earned cash would definitely be in the majority.

I also have nothing against reviews incorporating 2560x1440 resolutions. Of course I too am curious to see how far a card can be pushed, if only to get an indication of how robust the card may be for future gaming. Having said that, you really do want the resolutions from 1920x1080 and up included to give you a complete picture.
 
refillable


To my knowledge few people own a graphics configuration with GTX 780 level performance.
Click to expand...

Especially given the card has just been released - LOL. I see your point though, well said.

You can get cheap 27" 2560x1440 monitors for $300-$400. Granted you'll have to make some sacrifices, cheap stand, glossy plastic exterior, poor connectivity options, etc. But at least the option is there for those who are willing to make those sacrifices.
Click to expand...

A valid point, but... you want a few good years of life out of your monitor. Do you really want to be stuck with something second rate? I'd recommend waiting a little longer for the prices to drop on the more quality monitors.
 
[citation][nom]matto17secs[/nom]One thing that struck me was some of the new technologies. It was nice to see Nvidia trying out new things, whether good or bad, they still are out there pushing the envelope.One of the more impressive new pieces was the Reason Flags, which tell you exactly which parameter of the overclock was creating a bottleneck.[/citation]
Yes, totally agree! To me, that was the most impressive new feature in this release. Incredibly relevant for enthusiasts.
 
refillable
Really? Would you say the same applies for progressively lower resolutions? If you have the performance headroom to run games at higher resolutions, why wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I probably would go higher if I could - LOL. Having said that, I do still stand by my remark that "playing a game at 2560x1440 is sacrificing frame rate for no good reason." That will certainly change in the future when game producers churn out games with higher graphic requirements and ultra detailed textures. But I don't see that happening until the next generation of consoles come out. And even then it will be slow as game producers will wait for the new consoles to reach market saturation.

Most decent console ports include additional graphics enhancements such as high res textures and support for DX11 features. A well done console port can look considerably better than its console equivalent. Take Bioshock Infinite for example.
Click to expand...

Totally true, to the lament of my 13 year old nephew who is stuck on his XBox 360. Having said that, I haven't seen texture packs on any PC game - console port or otherwise - that look any better under 2560x1440 than they do on say 1900x1200. One, the files would be huge. Two, such hi res texture packs could only really cater to gamers with rigs using multi high end cards. Don't get me wrong, it will happen eventually, but again, probably not until the next graphic cards from AMD and Nvida have been released and the next generation consoles have been out awhile. Keep in mind the game producers cater to consoles and single GPU PCs first, as they are the lion share of the market.

PS - thanks for the anand review. Much better.
 


I was just about to direct you to Anandtech's review. I actually read their reviews first before THG
 
Looks like a pretty nice improvement over the 680. The price tag is a little too high for my liking though. Hopefully it will drop in the UK when AMD makes an announcement about their next gen.
 
AMD is in no rush or need to release anything in the interim, the 7970GE is still very strong at best on average around 10-15% slower but $150 cheaper, the HD7950 will still compete well similarly along with the 7870XT. Then at the budget spectrum the HD7790 and its immense power numbers and performance given is now primed to do well with Nvidia going to swamp the market with 600 and 700 parts, cannibalize each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom