GTX 780 Ti reviews

[skipsneeky2]

Technically its the opposite. Designing for higher continuous temperatures requires a higher degree of skill. While I agree the cooler on the 290/290X is not the best, having a chip that can run at that temp continuously is impressive.

Betting these cards won't even touch 85 cel with a aggressive fan profile and a after market cooler and that is also with a moderate overclock as well and for me that will be fantastic.I think the 290x personally is great but man i wouldn't be comfortable with a card hitting 90-95cel on a reference card as i never owned a card long term that ran at even 80cel load which to me is already high.

A new dawn perhaps of hotter running cards but after so many years its hard to just accept that it is ok for a card to normally run pass even 80cel and just be ok as 80cel has been my max comfort zone for years.

 

[96Firebird]

No, it's actually very good engineering.

No, just no.

Designing for a higher operating temperature is never a good thing when temperature is a factor that can cause the part to fail. Any engineer knows this.

 

[wand3r3r]

Betting these cards won't even touch 85 cel with a aggressive fan profile and a after market cooler and that is also with a moderate overclock as well and for me that will be fantastic.I think the 290x personally is great but man i wouldn't be comfortable with a card hitting 90-95cel on a reference card as i never owned a card long term that ran at even 80cel load which to me is already high.

A new dawn perhaps of hotter running cards but after so many years its hard to just accept that it is ok for a card to normally run pass even 80cel and just be ok as 80cel has been my max comfort zone for years.

A new dawn? I assume you haven't been following the GPU market for long. The 480 was in the same temperature range, especially OC models.

 

[Stuka87]

[H]

"In this evaluation, there are three video cards that are performing very similar to each other. These three video cards are delivering the same gameplay experience, and you would not be able to tell these apart in a "Pepsi Challenge" scenario. Those are the GTX 780 Ti, GTX TITAN, and R9 290X. The GTX 780 is the odd man out in this grouping"

True, but I am sure someone would know if they were gaming on a 290X from a noise stand point, but that should be fixed when custom solutions come along.

I am willing to bet the average person could not discern a 2.6dB difference (Load sound level as per AT review) once the card is inside a case. Heck, even with the card outside the case they may not be able to tell.

 

[imaheadcase]

No, it's actually very good engineering. Designing for higher operating temperatures allows them to minimize noise and maximize performance for a given environment while also ensuring safe operation, especially considering their design budget.

I'm not sure how some of you think you're smarter than a team of professional engineers, but you're not.

You are missing the point, the point is being hardly any faster than a comparable card yet increasing the temp is terrible engineering standpoint. Releasing a card almost a YEAR from competitors, running hotter, and barely faster, is terrible designing.

 

[RussianSensation]

This is a fun comparison of how arrogant NV has become.

HD6970 $369 vs. GTX580 $499 was 18-20% faster for a 35% price increase.
R9 290 $399 vs. GTX780Ti $699 is 15-16% faster for a 75% price increase.

If people thought 580 was overpriced, the 780Ti is on another level entirely. Whew. :\

Releasing a card almost a YEAR from competitors, running hotter, and barely faster, is terrible designing.

Because they hit that speed on a 438mm2 die, they undercut the card you speak off by $600. Some of you are living in la-la-land or something where prices of GPUs are completely irrelevant. You realize now you can buy nearly 1.8x Titan's performance in the form of 2x R9 290s for $200 less than the Titan just 8 months since it launched? You call that poor engineering? Are you kidding, seriously? Please send me $600 next time if it means nothing to you.

 

[imaheadcase]

aside from on EVGA's website, does anybody know where these can be purchased?

If you order from amazon.com, it says "temp out of stock" but a few friends got a email saying item was shipping. Its hit and miss I think atm. Mine is still in limbo though.

 

[imaheadcase]

This is a fun comparison of how arrogant NV has become.

HD6970 $369 vs. GTX580 $499 was 18-20% faster for a 35% price increase.
R9 290 $399 vs. GTX780Ti $699 is 15-16% faster for a 75% price increase.

:\

How is that arrogant again? You use that word, but I don't think you understand the meaning.. They make a higher performance card and charge more for it..oh the travesty! lol

 

[GaiaHunter]

You are missing the point, the point is being hardly any faster than a comparable card yet increasing the temp is terrible engineering standpoint. Releasing a card almost a YEAR from competitors, running hotter, and barely faster, is terrible designing.

And smaller with 1B less transistors.

The temperature that it runs is simply due to the cooler because in terms of heat dissipation (something like 10W) they are pretty close.

 

[24601]

For those actually thinking of buying working out the value equation.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?LH_B...LH_Sold=1&_nkw=nvidia+assassin+splinter&rt=nc

and

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...a+assassin+splinter+arkham+OR+batman&_sacat=0

For those of you who would have bought none of the games.

 

[ams23]

What really surprised me is that GTX 780 Ti in SLI draws so much less power than R9 290X in Crossfire in Anandtech's Crysis 3 gaming test, while maintaining higher performance too!?!.

Multi-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 556 watts
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 643 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 727 watts

Multi-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 100.6 fps
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 80.1 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 90.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 multi-GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti SLI has 45% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X Crossfire in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 45% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X Crossfire in "Quiet" mode!

Now let's look at single GPU results.

Single-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 372 watts
R9 290X "Quiet": 375 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 405 watts

Single-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 62.4 fps
R9 290X "Quiet": 51.9 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 53.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 single GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti has 26% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 21% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X in "Quiet" mode!

For those who want an NVIDIA card, the GTX 780/780 OC models are still a better value than GTX 780 Ti, but in general the perf-per-watt is really good on these high end Kepler models (and one can only imagine how much better performance would be if temp/noise/power limits were raised, especially in SLI systems).

 

[lavaheadache]

While looking on amazon for the 780 ti I found in stock 290x's for $569. I don't even see a 780 ti part listed.

 

[imaheadcase]

While looking on amazon for the 780 ti I found in stock 290x's for $569. I don't even see a 780 ti part listed.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Amazon won't show out of stock items in searches by default, have to click on it on left side.

 

[24601]

While looking on amazon for the 780 ti I found in stock 290x's for $569. I don't even see a 780 ti part listed.

http://www.amazon.com/Galaxy-GeForce...rce+GTX+780+Ti

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-GTX780TI-...rce+GTX+780+Ti

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-Supercloc...rce+GTX+780+Ti

Looks like they're all out of stock.

 

[skipsneeky2]

A new dawn? I assume you haven't been following the GPU market for long. The 480 was in the same temperature range, especially OC models.

Oh i wasn't gaming seriously anyways when the gtx480 came out,in fact i got back into gaming shortly after the gtx580 came out and personally the gtx295 i sold the year before was to hot and loud anyways when i lost interest in gaming and went the htpc route.So missed out on the gtx480 and the fun it provided with the many amd 5800 series vs gtx480 debates going about.

 

[f1sherman]

How is that arrogant again? You use that word, but I don't think you understand the meaning.. They make a higher performance card and charge more for it..oh the travesty! lol

Well 780 Ti is only faster, cooler, less noisy, better OC, draws less power and comes with bigger bag of goodies than competition.

If only Nvidia could make it cheaper too!

 

[Grooveriding]

While looking on amazon for the 780 ti I found in stock 290x's for $569. I don't even see a 780 ti part listed.

I've camped newegg for nvidia launch day items before. 12pm EST is when they show up.

 

[ShintaiDK]

While looking on amazon for the 780 ti I found in stock 290x's for $569. I don't even see a 780 ti part listed.

Was stock ealier today when I posted the link for the first time.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=ATVPDKIKX0DER

 

[Stuka87]

What really surprised me is that GTX 780 Ti in SLI draws so much less power than R9 290X in Crossfire in Anandtech's Crysis 3 gaming test, while maintaining higher performance too!?!.

Multi-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 556 watts
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 643 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 727 watts

Multi-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 100.6 fps
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 80.1 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 90.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 multi-GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti SLI has 45% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X Crossfire in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 45% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X Crossfire in "Quiet" mode!

Now let's look at single GPU results.

Single-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 372 watts
R9 290X "Quiet": 375 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 405 watts

Single-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 62.4 fps
R9 290X "Quiet": 51.9 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 53.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 single GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti SLI has 26% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X Crossfire in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 21% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X Crossfire in "Quiet" mode!

For those who want an NVIDIA card, the GTX 780/780 OC models are still a better value than GTX 780 Ti, but in general the perf-per-watt is really good on these high end Kepler models (and one can only imagine how much better performance would be if temp/noise/power limits were raised).

Somebody needs to measure motherboard power consumption. Remember the 290/290X use PCI-E for crossfire. So the motherboard is having to handle all that data, which is going to increase power consumption.

 

[at80eighty]

good card, but that price delta is unjustifiable imo.
guess i'll move onto the retail 290/290x whenever they finally hit my shores

 

[rtsurfer]

What really surprised me is that GTX 780 Ti in SLI draws so much less power than R9 290X in Crossfire in Anandtech's Crysis 3 gaming test, while maintaining higher performance too!?!.

Multi-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 556 watts
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 643 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 727 watts

Multi-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 100.6 fps
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 80.1 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 90.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 multi-GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti SLI has 45% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X Crossfire in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 45% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X Crossfire in "Quiet" mode!

Now let's look at single GPU results.

Single-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 372 watts
R9 290X "Quiet": 375 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 405 watts

Single-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 62.4 fps
R9 290X "Quiet": 51.9 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 53.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 single GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti SLI has 26% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X Crossfire in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 21% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X Crossfire in "Quiet" mode!

For those who want an NVIDIA card, the GTX 780/780 OC models are still a better value than GTX 780 Ti, but in general the perf-per-watt is really good on these high end Kepler models (and one can only imagine how much better performance would be if temp/noise/power limits were raised, especially in SLI systems).

Speaking for myself Indo not care about Performance/Watt.

I care about Performance/Price.

Energy savings hardly result in amy significant amout of dollar savings


And as for the raising the power/temperature cielings, believe me NVIDIA would raise them if they could.
The GPU die has to be designed in a certain way to tolerate the high temperatures.
The 780TI is still faster but I seriously doubt it has more thermal headroom.

Aftermarket 780TIs will just cooler more than the reference blower keeping it from reaching 83C, thus allowing higher OCs..

 

[RussianSensation]

How is that arrogant again? You use that word, but I don't think you understand the meaning.. They make a higher performance card and charge more for it..oh the travesty! lol

I guess you missed the part where NV is now asking more than double for each % increase over AMD compared to 5870 vs. 480 or 6970 vs. 580 generations. Next generation, should they ask triple? You make it sound as if NV can just charge whatever they want for a 15-16% performance increase. Why don't they charge $500 next round? Why not price all their flagship single GPUs at $999?

GTX 780 Ti SLI: 100.6 fps
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 80.1 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 90.8 fps

So the the key take-away is that 780Ti SLI gets a gamer 10 fps more for $300 more over 290Xs. Or in other words, if someone were to purchase 2 after-market 290s and overclock them, they'll probably be within 87% of the performance of overclocked 780Ti SLI and save $600.

What's the break-even analysis for how many decades it would take for this gamer to make up for the extra power usage on the R9 290s over GTX780Ti SLI vs. saving $600?

FYI, people on this forum are running highly overclocked CPUs and GPUs. They sure as hell don't care about 200W of extra power usage when there is a $600 price difference between 290s and 780Tis.

 

[krumme]

How would the review look with bf4 and mantle driver instead of the old bf3 and perhaps even aftermarket 290x? 10% would be 0%.

This card will end slower than 290x in 2014. But it looks nice and have a nice blower if you dont care its not silent like the open designs. Looks to me like the worst value ever from nv. 700 for 3gb ???

 

[GaiaHunter]

What really surprised me is that GTX 780 Ti in SLI draws so much less power than R9 290X in Crossfire in Anandtech's Crysis 3 gaming test, while maintaining higher performance too!?!.

Multi-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 556 watts
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 643 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 727 watts

Multi-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti SLI: 100.6 fps
R9 290X "Quiet" Crossfire: 80.1 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud] Crossfire: 90.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 multi-GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti SLI has 45% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X Crossfire in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 45% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X Crossfire in "Quiet" mode!

Now let's look at single GPU results.

Single-GPU Power Consumption in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59709.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 372 watts
R9 290X "Quiet": 375 watts
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 405 watts

Single-GPU Performance in Crysis 3 (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7492/59674.png)
GTX 780 Ti: 62.4 fps
R9 290X "Quiet": 51.9 fps
R9 290X "Uber"[Loud]: 53.8 fps

This means that, with respect to Crysis 3 single GPU gaming perf-per-watt, GTX 780 Ti SLI has 26% higher perf-per-watt compared R9 290X Crossfire in "Uber"[Loud] Mode, and 21% higher perf-per-watt compared to R9 290X Crossfire in "Quiet" mode!

For those who want an NVIDIA card, the GTX 780/780 OC models are still a better value than GTX 780 Ti, but in general the perf-per-watt is really good on these high end Kepler models (and one can only imagine how much better performance would be if temp/noise/power limits were raised, especially in SLI systems).

I have to say that AT benchmark shows quite a big difference in Crysis 3.

I've seen other benchmarks where the 780Ti also has a big lead in Crysis 3 like hardwarecanucks but I've also seen much less difference like in [H].

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

And I've seen the 290X CF beat the 780Ti SLi as well.

 

[ams23]

And as for the raising the power/temperature cielings, believe me NVIDIA would raise them if they could.
The GPU die has to be designed in a certain way to tolerate the high temperatures.
The 780TI is still faster but I seriously doubt it has more thermak headroom.

That is incorrect. All GTX 780/780Ti/Titan reference models have much more thermal/noise/power headroom available than R9 290/290X reference models. As an example, Titan owners have dramatically increased performance by raising thermal/noise/power limits. As for perf-per-dollar, no one in their right mind is going to spend $700-$1000 on a graphics card when they are on a tight budget. One may as well stick with a $150-$200 GPU to maximize perf-per-dollar.