I was looking at Anand's chart in their review. They show it was $130, and the 750Ti as $150. I did not look at street prices.
EDIT: Ooops, the 260 was $130, the new 260X is now $120.
Last edited:
260X is 10$ cheaper. And the 265 cant be bought yet.
Is there voltage data and how it compares to retail cards? Smells fishy...
So it comes down to spending $150 on lower power, or higher performance.
Wonder if this has to do with TrueAudio? The 260(X) has it, but the 265 does not.
Seems like they're going to depend on people being dumb enough to consider "power savings" as one of the big criteria on choosing a card for gaming. Highly disappointing, had they given this even a 192 bit bus and a 6 pin, it would be in GTX 760 territory.
They didn't probably because of the very reason you named.
760 is not a bad card and there are lots of those on shelf.
Well, now that the reviews are out and the 750TI is close at the heels of a GTX 660 at less than half the wattage, my burning question is can I run them in SLI or not??
Anyone have any idea how big of a step up from a 560Ti a 750Ti would be? I saw a few on Newegg and like the price on them, thinking of grabbing one to replace the 560Ti in the budget FM2+ system I built.
...
Seems like they're going to depend on people being dumb enough to consider "power savings" as one of the big criteria on choosing a card for gaming. Highly disappointing, had they given this even a 192 bit bus and a 6 pin, it would be in GTX 760 territory.
TreVader said:From what it looks like nvidia has purposely shot itself in the foot with that 128 bit bus and even more oddly the total lack of over-voltage options and no 6 pin for the 750ti. It costs the same as the 265, but preforms worse everywhere. It has great OC headroom, but too bad cuz you can't use it.
Seems like they're going to depend on people being dumb enough to consider "power savings" as one of the big criteria on choosing a card for gaming. Highly disappointing, had they given this even a 192 bit bus and a 6 pin, it would be in GTX 760 territory.
TreVader said:Mantle is looking like it's going to give the crown back to the 290X, although for mGPU the 290X never lost the crown. 10-15% is easily enough to put the 780ti in its place.
I wonder what intel is thinking about this. The 4770k/4930K/4960X are no longer going to be great ideas if all you want to do is game. AMD processors are suddenly viable options, assuming Mantle really takes off (and I think it will).
Mantle is looking like it's going to give the crown back to the 290X, although for mGPU the 290X never lost the crown. 10-15% is easily enough to put the 780ti in its place.
Its something different. 7790 and 260x is basically the same card, TPU measured one at 69W and the other at 85W. Why?
The GTX750TI is 26% faster in Crysis while the whole system uses 12w less power.
So it still nearly 50% better in the perf/watt area.
The Compare the 750 Ti to the year-old 7790 and it's not quite so flattering - 10% higher performance and 12W less power draw.
The 260X has 100 MHz higher clock speed. Even that is enough to make power consumption soar. The 260X was never meant to be a particularly power-efficient card anyway - it was designed more for maximum yield and performance.
Compare the 750 Ti to the year-old 7790 and it's not quite so flattering - 10% higher performance and 12W less power draw. Sure it's a good card and Maxwell shows a lot of promise but there is nothing here that AMD is unduly concerned about.
A Maxwell preview on the same node that is 25% faster than the 7790 and uses 20% less power is an industry shake-up.
This is called an outlier. The reason it's an outlier is because the 750 Ti is 3x faster in Batman Origins. Most reputable websites wouldn't benchmark that game for this reason alone.
That's why techpowerup is getting such crazy perf/W numbers compared to everybody else.
They have the card almost 15% faster than the 260X when most everybody else is around 5%. That can only happen when one or two games are ridiculously biased.