780 ti and 290x uber

[Ibra]

Source please, oh you just made it up? Cool story.

You must be posting from a different dimension where reviews are published already.
Only thing inferior is the reference cooler, the board itself is a beast and a great engineering feat @28nm

Not Ti but faster than R9 290X. So Ti also will be faster.

http://videocardz.com/47420/nvidia-updates-geforce-gtx-780-ghz-edition
http://videocardz.com/47542/gigabyte-releases-geforce-gtx-780-ghz-edition-windforce-3x-cooler

Even DHS Edition will be faster.
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/ex...780_ichill_herculez_x3_ultra_dhs_edition.html

AMD smaller die beating Nvidia's bigger one
Few months ago nobody believed AMD could turn the tables and yet they beat the mighty TITAN, i say it's a engineering marvel, just needs a proper cooler

Yeah, smaller die with bigger power draw and heat.

Even if that was the case, AMD is this fast @ $550
Greedy Nvidia still charges $1000 for TITAN

If you are poor go to church.

For that you can take a vacation until Thanksgiving or so.
-ViRGE

 

[KingFatty]

... overclock a 780 to the same noise level and wattage level as a 290x uber.

this is exactly what 780ti is.

in a capitalist society. we have to love competition.

But isn't the 780ti also a beefier card with more processing units, like a different beefed-up architecture too? I thought it was more than merely an overclock, almost like the 780 was the caterpillar and the 780ti is the butterfly?

 

[Keysplayr]

Is that AMD's fault too? They could come up with a 512-bit bus and enable every core they could, how's that a negative thing?
This further proves the limitations Nvidia encountered while designing the GPU. It makes the GCN arch this much more impressive. Thanks for agreeing

Why are you talking about "faults" here? Is there a blame game going on that I'm not aware of?
And you completely missed the point. Nvidia does more with less in this case, similar to 680 vs 7970GHz. Nobody is at "fault" for anything. It is what it is.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Nvidia does more with less in this case, similar to 680 vs 7970GHz

No similarities there. 680 has a smaller die than 7970, here (780 vs 290x) is the other way. AMD is doing more (performance wise) with less (smaller die)

 

[Cloudfire777]

GTX 780 Ti will be nowhere as loud and hot as R9 290X. Atleast not on stock clocks.
Unlike AMD, Nvidia dont build GPUs with a pretty bad reference cooler

Source please, oh you just made it up? Cool story.

GTX Titan, GTX 690 and GTX 780.
That is your source

There are Titan users with pretty high clocks still not near 94C you see on the 290X.

 

[Rvenger]

Gotta love this slimmer bus talk but when Nvidia clearly has a huge die, that doesn't even come into the decision. I was playing BF4 last night on 1080p with my $160 HD7950 running at stock speeds with the settings cranked and smooth as butter. On the other hand my buddy with the 2gb GTX 670 and another one with a GTX 470 were experiencing texture popping and crashes which I would think due to possibly running out of VRAM. Its great to have a card with a little extra oomph for the future games. Sure the 680 2gb was fine back then but I can guarantee that the 7970 will come out on top after all this time with that extra VRAM. I believe history will follow with the 290x and gtx 780 for sure.

GTX 780ti 3gb will be a waste in the near future IMO. Get the 6gb version.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Gotta love this slimmer bus talk but when Nvidia clearly has a huge die, that doesn't even come into the decision. I was playing BF4 last night on 1080p with my $160 HD7950 running at stock speeds with the settings cranked and smooth as butter. On the other hand my buddy with the 2gb GTX 670 and another one with a GTX 470 were experiencing texture popping and crashes which I would think due to possibly running out of VRAM. Its great to have a card with a little extra oomph for the future games. Sure the 680 2gb was fine back then but I can guarantee that the 7970 will come out on top after all this time with that extra VRAM. I believe history will follow with the 290x and gtx 780 for sure.

 

[Rvenger]

At 1080p it clearly uses over 2gb VRAM and looks like the Nvidia driver is leaking more VRAM too. Mine hit 2204mb last night after 4 hours.

 

[Keysplayr]

No similarities there. 680 has a smaller die than 7970, here (780 vs 290x) is the other way. AMD is doing more (performance wise) with less (smaller die)

Wow. Just wow. No similarities. I'll leave you to your own mind then.
/peace.

 

[Keysplayr]

Gotta love this slimmer bus talk but when Nvidia clearly has a huge die, that doesn't even come into the decision. I was playing BF4 last night on 1080p with my $160 HD7950 running at stock speeds with the settings cranked and smooth as butter. On the other hand my buddy with the 2gb GTX 670 and another one with a GTX 470 were experiencing texture popping and crashes which I would think due to possibly running out of VRAM. Its great to have a card with a little extra oomph for the future games. Sure the 680 2gb was fine back then but I can guarantee that the 7970 will come out on top after all this time with that extra VRAM. I believe history will follow with the 290x and gtx 780 for sure.

GTX 780ti 3gb will be a waste in the near future IMO. Get the 6gb version.

The bus is slimmer. What's not to love right?

 

[Zodiark1593]

Yes it will help. It's a power hog we all know but just like Fermi, it's faster than anything the competition has right now

I'm not sure why people bring up power consumption when we're talking about top-end video cards. If I was in the market for the fastest video card, performance takes top priority, followed by temp characteristics (hopefully decent coolers come soon for the R290X), power use coming at a distant third, if only just to make sure the PSU can feed it, noise being a non-consideration in my decision.

For those looking for a power-sipping video card, I'd hardly think the fastest of video cards from either party would be suitable.

However, the R290X should get a better cooler. I wonder what kind of overclocking would be possible if it was underwater.

 

[SolMiester]

AMD smaller die beating Nvidia's bigger one
Few months ago nobody believed AMD could turn the tables and yet they beat the mighty TITAN, i say it's a engineering marvel, just needs a proper cooler

An engineering marvel to beat or equal the Titan...LOL, I guess someone has to be the benchmark...

 

[3DVagabond]

It is the case. I agree on price, though. The 780 GHz and 780 Ti should be much better competitors when it comes to value. Titan is EOL.

So, do you think the 780ti will be ~27% faster than the 290X? Because that's how much more expensive it's going to be.

 

[3DVagabond]

Yes, but if you enable uber mode on the 290X you should also raise the temp target on the Nvidia card(s). If you create additional thermal headroom on one card, you have to do so on the other card as well. Both cards allow this albeit by different means. Then basically nothing changes. There is no way around it: Both cards are equally fast across multiple settings.

So, can you get someone to do that and report about it? As it is now, you are assuming, or want us to believe, that will make Titan equal to the 290X. Do we have those figures to compare?

 

[exar333]

So, do you think the 780ti will be ~27% faster than the 290X? Because that's how much more expensive it's going to be.

So by your logic the 290x should also be 25% faster than the 290, or it is a failure too? Right...

Faster parts cost more. Plain and simple. Price and performance don't correlate the same at $500+ than they do for sub $300 cards. Read up.

 

[Enigmoid]

So, do you think the 780ti will be ~27% faster than the 290X? Because that's how much more expensive it's going to be.

So the R290X is then grossly overpriced?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3938566&SID=

So by your logic the 290x should also be 25% faster than the 290, or it is a failure too? Right...

Faster parts cost more. Plain and simple. Price and performance don't correlate the same at $500+ than they do for sub $300 cards. Read up.

Exactly.

 

[Cloudfire777]

I'm not sure why people bring up power consumption when we're talking about top-end video cards. If I was in the market for the fastest video card, performance takes top priority, followed by temp characteristics (hopefully decent coolers come soon for the R290X), power use coming at a distant third, if only just to make sure the PSU can feed it, noise being a non-consideration in my decision.

For those looking for a power-sipping video card, I'd hardly think the fastest of video cards from either party would be suitable.

However, the R290X should get a better cooler. I wonder what kind of overclocking would be possible if it was underwater.

Power consumption is actually pretty revealing.

Big power consumption vs the competition usually means

- Worse efficiency. Something that might come bite them in the tail since the competitor could build a faster GPU since it have more headroom on the silicon to catch up.
GTX 780 GHz vs the 290X is a perfect example of just that.

- Hotter cores. High power consumption is usually followed by high heat output from the chip.
3000 cores on 400mm^2 will output a heck more heat than 2000 cores on 400mm^2.

 

[ams23]

When comparing perf. per mm^2, one really needs to compare apples to apples rather than a fully unlocked die to a cut down die. A fully unlocked GK110-based reference GTX 780 Ti with 95 degree temp target and 55% fan speed will absolutely trounce a reference R9 290X under most scenarios. Even a stock GTX 780 Ti at low temps/low fan speeds appears to perform up to ~20% better for gaming purposes than GTX Titan based on prelim. info.

 

[BrightCandle]

The VRAM numbers from gamegpu.RU are wrong. The game uses a form of caching and appears to fill the VRAM after a few minutes of play. But loading an initial level is 1.5GB with ultra MSAA 4x 1080p. I know I tested this myself. The problem is I don't know what if any the caching has. Really someone needs to compare 2x 2GB and 2x 4GB 680s and see what if any impact it has. But the game requires 1.5GB by the looks of things and at those settings you have to have SLI.

 

[3DVagabond]

So by your logic the 290x should also be 25% faster than the 290, or it is a failure too? Right...

Faster parts cost more. Plain and simple. Price and performance don't correlate the same at $500+ than they do for sub $300 cards. Read up.

So the R290X is then grossly overpriced?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3938566&SID=


Exactly.

Both of you must have missed the post I was responding to.

It is the case. I agree on price, though. The 780 GHz and 780 Ti should be much better competitors when it comes to value. Titan is EOL.

 

[3DVagabond]

Power consumption is actually pretty revealing.

Big power consumption vs the competition usually means

- Worse efficiency. Something that might come bite them in the tail since the competitor could build a faster GPU since it have more headroom on the silicon to catch up.
GTX 780 GHz vs the 290X is a perfect example of just that.

- Hotter cores. High power consumption is usually followed by high heat output from the chip.
3000 cores on 400mm^2 will output a heck more heat than 2000 cores on 400mm^2.

Heat is purely a result of the power dissipated. It has nothing to do with the xtors/mm²

 

[el etro]

My bet is the 780Ghz was made because 780Ti will not beat 290x by a good margin. Ghz edition should beat 290X(uber) by 10-15%. Will be a hell of luxury product, but i still stay with the reds because of the Hawaii price.

 

[OCGuy]

290x "uber" is just a 290x that you paid for.

 

[XiandreX]

AMD smaller die beating Nvidia's bigger one
Few months ago nobody believed AMD could turn the tables and yet they beat the mighty TITAN, i say it's a engineering marvel, just needs a proper cooler

I couldn't have said it better. Its a fantastic product, but needs a better cooler to really come into its own.

 

[wand3r3r]

So by your logic the 290x should also be 25% faster than the 290, or it is a failure too? Right...

Faster parts cost more. Plain and simple. Price and performance don't correlate the same at $500+ than they do for sub $300 cards. Read up.

The point here is that if you ask a certain posters about the 780 vs. 290x, they will defend the 780 as it's price/performance is about in line with the 290x while being slower (10%+ slower, 10% cheaper).
(This is fine imo, and I agree.)

Ask about the 780 ti which costs 27% more than the 290x and will likely be a lot less faster (than expensive), and they will justify it by saying the fastest commands a premium as you mentioned.
(So what happened to recommending the slower card a minute ago with a better value, despite the worse value of the higher end card?)

Wait, didn't they just avoid recommending the 290x although not having the absurd "premium"? (Yeah the cooler sucks, that aside the double standards are annoying)

That, I believe, was the point. I hope it's clear.