Nvidia unveils the GeForce GTX 780 Ti

[PedantOne]

i have not measured titan here, but can be true. Full core + higher Clock = more then titan, but for sure IT IS lower then 290X in all scenarios

[tajoh111]

Note that videocardz.com say the 780 Ti is overclocked. That might explain the high power draw. But then the performance would be meh.

I think the performance in those graphics are not really overclocked in the sense as they were hitting numbers like 990 boost to 1068 boost. I think like the old generation, the card never really stays under 928 boost and goes well beyond it. Titan regularly hit 990mhz in reviews for boosting which is 115mh above its boost clock.

[boxleitnerb]

I think the performance in those graphics are not really overclocked in the sense as they were hitting numbers like 990 boost to 1068 boost. I think like the old generation, the card never really stays under 928 boost and goes well beyond it. Titan regularly hit 990mhz in reviews for boosting which is 115mh above its boost clock.

In short benchmarks yes. Under longer load rather not. Then all Nvidia boost 2.0 cards clock down significantly towards base clock because they hit 80C and stay there - unless you increase the temperature target.

[vitchilo]

The 780ti needs more video memory for 4k gaming. There's rumors of a 12gb version... is that even possible?

[tajoh111]

In short benchmarks yes. Under longer load rather not. Then all Nvidia boost 2.0 cards clock down significantly towards base clock because they hit 80C and stay there - unless you increase the temperature target.

Yeah that true. But then again, at least against the competition, the 290x, the results should still be pretty similar because the 290x gets a similar boost from short bench sessions.

The 780ti needs more video memory for 4k gaming. There's rumors of a 12gb version... is that even possible?

It needs more ROP than memory with 4k because of the number of pixels on the screen.

What AMD did by giving every reviewer that mattered a 4k monitor is genius. Its a trojan horse. Of course reviewers are going to accept a free 4k monitor if all they have to do is test at 4k. But ultimately, the results are irrelevant as the monitors are too expensive for the next few years and it serves to make AMD cards look dominant by pushing a bottleneck in Nvidia cards. I haven't seen a single gamer put into their signature owning a 4k monitor yet from the reviews, its seems like just a common a resolution as 2560*1440. Heck i think I have seen a review that tested at 1080p and 4k but miss 2560. I don't think 4k will become mainstream for at least 4 years, 3500 for a 4k monitors is much too steep and costs more than 99 percent of the computers, even on a hardware website.

[Olivon]

they have put out to many fakes in the past to believe anything now

This "getwinder" user is not trustworthy, I agree with you.

[boxleitnerb]

Yeah that true. But then again, at least against the competition, the 290x, the results should still be pretty similar because the 290x gets a similar boost from short bench sessions.

Agreed. Boost 2.0/Powertune Next makes benchmarking a very unreliable undertaking unless one takes care that realistic conditions are met. Unfortunately, most reviewers still don't have that figured out
I think clock for clock comparisons should be more interesting in the future. From there one could extrapolate the performance at different varying clock speeds for both cards.

[UrbanSmooth]

At $700 per GPU, Nvidia more than likely has an ace up their sleeve. Surely they can't be that dumb to price a GPU at $700 that's only 5-10% better than the GTX Titan? I'm hoping for 15 to 20% or better.

[boxleitnerb]

Sure they can, it's Nvidia
But you have to think of it this way since Titan was so overpriced because of the DP capabilities:

GTX 780: 649$ and 100% performance
GTX 780 Ti: $700 and 120% performance

That doesn't sound too bad.

[tajoh111]

Sure they can, it's Nvidia
But you have to think of it this way since Titan was so overpriced because of the DP capabilities:

GTX 780: 649$ and 100% performance
GTX 780 Ti: $700 and 120% performance

That doesn't sound too bad.

I think this pricing only makes sense until AMD get's a bundle.

I would value the bundle itself worth about 50 bucks at a minimum. Probably closer to 75. The only reason AMD survived in 2012 was the bundle saved their ass. I think what's going to let Nvidia over price the gtx 780 ti is the bundle. With no games included for the 290x(aside from the first 8k buyers), the gtx 780 is well priced against it, while the gtx 780 is priced a tad high against the 290x(Nvidia has been charging anywhere from 100-150 for a 10-15% difference for years).

I think the day gtx 780 ti comes out, AMD better get another bundle going. People will hop on the gtx 780 ti if there is still no stock for the 290x. The gtx 780 price cut with the bundle already took a lot of potential customers who desired the 290x value for the performance. A gtx 780 ti with bundle is going to take another bite of potential 290x customers who just want the most performance from a single GPU card as they can.

The bundle initially supported AMD when they were considered the inferior card(particularly early before the newer drivers boosted performance) in April 2012. It supporting Nvidia to an extent here too, but with the branding advantage, stock(this may be good or bad, but I can't see them doing anyworse than AMD stock issues), and a very competitive product, Nvidia is in a better position to counter AMD then AMD was ready to counter Nvidia back then. At least with the price range Nvidia was attacking.

The wild card is Mantle but that shows up in December, but it could really help AMD turn the tables on Nvidia.

[GoldenTiger]

Yeah, if I go for a 780 Ti I intend to just sell the bundled games, which should chop a nice chunk of change off of the card's price (~$75 give or take a little I think is the going rate at the moment). It's definitely a good advantage for NVidia right now.

[Hornet331]

Yeah that true. But then again, at least against the competition, the 290x, the results should still be pretty similar because the 290x gets a similar boost from short bench sessions.



It needs more ROP than memory with 4k because of the number of pixels on the screen.

What AMD did by giving every reviewer that mattered a 4k monitor is genius. Its a trojan horse. Of course reviewers are going to accept a free 4k monitor if all they have to do is test at 4k. But ultimately, the results are irrelevant as the monitors are too expensive for the next few years and it serves to make AMD cards look dominant by pushing a bottleneck in Nvidia cards. I haven't seen a single gamer put into their signature owning a 4k monitor yet from the reviews, its seems like just a common a resolution as 2560*1440. Heck i think I have seen a review that tested at 1080p and 4k but miss 2560. I don't think 4k will become mainstream for at least 4 years, 3500 for a 4k monitors is much too steep and costs more than 99 percent of the computers, even on a hardware website.

Wonder why you are concerned with mainstream, when this are enthusiast cards. You also forget the same thing applies for multi monitor setups. It doesn't matter if you have one monitor with 3840?2160 or 2 1440p displays they are all in the range of 8 megapixel. Also already at 4 mega pixel most reviews show a lead of the 290x vs the titan and thats only one 1440p display which are quite affordable today.

[tajoh111]

Wonder why you are concerned with mainstream, when this are enthusiast cards. You also forget the same thing applies for multi monitor setups. It doesn't matter if you have one monitor with 3840?2160 or 2 1440p displays they are all in the range of 8 megapixel. Also already at 4 mega pixel most reviews show a lead of the 290x vs the titan and thats only one 1440p display which are quite affordable today.

Even the enthusiast don't have 4k monitors yet. 3500 dollars is a crap load to spend on monitors. In addition, someone that going to spend that much on a gaming monitor is best off getting multicards setups up anyway as a 290x can barely get things playable(plus why cheap out, you just spent 3500 on a monitor) and at that point the bottleneck put on the nvidia setup disappears. Two 1440 p monitors isn't really a resolution you see people use. multi monitor 2 monitors setups are stupid for gaming. Who wants a bezel in the center of their field of view. In general, 27" monitors are a poorer choice for multimonitor set up in general because their bezels are too big. In addition, to do a triple 27" monitor setup at at around 11mp, takes tremendous power and at that point your best getting one card for every screen.

Heck even 1080 eyefinity setup can be too stressful for a single 290x. I was just looking at techpowerup's review and anything recent beside grid 2(and the nvidia setup was also playable with this setup) didn't get playable frame rates.

2560*1440 only make up 2 percent of the monitors on steam hardware survey and that's with 27 imacs, 300 dollar korean monitors and the people who spend 700 on a dell or samsung. These are the people who already make up the enthusiast.

4k monitor setups are for the freakish enthusiast who spends a order of magnitude more than most people on setup like Vega. And those type of customers are the one in tens of thousands.

[Olivon]

http://www.chiphell.com/thread-892121-1-1.html

[paulbagz]

Why would they black out that information lol?

-PB

[boxleitnerb]

To protect their sources. Maybe you can track certain review samples by this information.

[[XC] Oj101]

It has happened before.

[paulbagz]

Ahh thanks for that

-PB

[R101]

Found this, also:

http://videocardz.com/47587/nvidia-g...ng-performance

[tajoh111]

Found this, also:

http://videocardz.com/47587/nvidia-g...ng-performance

Just like Amd bench marks, take off 10 percent for Nvidia. Nonetheless I have found Nvidia's are closer to the mark than AMDs. Both are still off. Cant see those grid 2 numbers being real so it could be a fake altogether. Looking at it, I can't see those numbers being true. This seems more like a fake than anything.

[R101]

I did not know what to expect of the results (I'm not a PC gamer/benchmarker), got to that page by looking for something else , so sorry if those are fake..

[Tha Last Meal]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti official specifications

[Zloyd]

Looks like its gonna come out ahead of 290x but meh @ nvidia

ATI beat titan @ 550$ they take longer and 700$ well they get the all important *FASTEST GPU IN THE UNIVERSE .... * title back.

Wonder if ATI is cooking something bigger for a jan-feb release. Loving this battle !! (Im gonna lose so much money )

[aussie-revhead]

Sure they can, it's Nvidia
But you have to think of it this way since Titan was so overpriced because of the DP capabilities:

GTX 780: 649$ and 100% performance
GTX 780 Ti: $700 and 120% performance

That doesn't sound too bad.

Not bad but after buying a Titan, then a 780 Lightning, Im going to sit this step out.

[UrbanSmooth]

Looks like its gonna come out ahead of 290x but meh @ nvidia

ATI beat titan @ 550$ they take longer and 700$ well they get the all important *FASTEST GPU IN THE UNIVERSE .... * title back.

Wonder if ATI is cooking something bigger for a jan-feb release. Loving this battle !! (Im gonna lose so much money )

ATI is dead, dude. It's AMD now.

Looks like the GTX 780 Ti could make for some juicy performance. Alas, we all must wait and see.