• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[HardOCP] Asus DC II 290X max overclock versus GTX 780ti max overclocking review:

B

blackened23

Diamond Member
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...ctcu_ii_oc_overclocking_review/5#.UtS8GvRDuaU

Couldn't find the other thread to post this in. So here it is. HardOCP overclocked the 290X to the max and compared it to the 780ti reference OC'ed to the max. Do note. Reference 780ti. Not a fair comparison because the 780ti is reference and the 290X is an aftermarket card with a custom PCB. That said, here are the results:

1389621638LtCMz6ijr3_5_1.gif


1389621638LtCMz6ijr3_5_2.gif


1389621638LtCMz6ijr3_5_3.gif


1389621638LtCMz6ijr3_5_4.gif


1389621638LtCMz6ijr3_6_1.gif


Summary:

The GeForce GTX 780 Ti is basically being held back a lot by its clock speed. There is a lot more potential inside the GeForce GTX 780 Ti once you overclock it. Overclocking it past 1.1GHz really unleashes the power of this GPU, and we see in these graphs.

The overclocked ASUS R9 290X DirectCU II OC is able to outperform the stock clocked GeForce GTX 780 Ti. However, once you overclock the GeForce GTX 780 Ti the GTX 780 Ti simply owns the R9 290X at these clock speeds.

The GeForce GTX 780 Ti also demands more power, but nowhere as much as the R9 290X when overclocking. The GTX 780 Ti demands half as much power, and only consumes 11% more power. Also, the GTX 780 Ti is consuming less power to overclock, and it is overclocking much higher from 941MHz to 1163MHz.

It is also impressive by which the GeForce GTX 780 Ti is able to get away with such low voltages compared to the ASUS R9 290X DC2 OC. Where the ASUS R9 290X DC2 OC operates at 1.227v at its default clock speed, the GTX 780 Ti does it at 1.05v. When we overclock both cards we have to take the R9 290X up to 1.35v to get anywhere, whereas the GTX 780 Ti goes further at 1.125v.

It is clear who the king of efficiency is, the GeForce GTX 780 Ti wins this round of overclocking wars.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah. That overclock seems really low for a 780ti. To be expected for a reference card. It still won by a sizable margin like you said.

I know the aftermarket 780ti's do MUCH better in terms of overclocks.
 
Also, the ASUS card isn't actually a custom PCB for the 290x is it? There's no custom power circuitry or anything yet for any 290x is there?
 
I think the only real comparison between these two GPUs will be with something really custom,like using MSI's Lightning for both.Although it's clear that GK110 has the upper (upper upper) hand in efficiency,I think potential performance isn't tapped for either with the underprovisioned reference PCBs.Time will tell...
 
tolis626 said:
I think the only real comparison between these two GPUs will be with something really custom,like using MSI's Lightning for both.Although it's clear that GK110 has the upper (upper upper) hand in efficiency,I think potential performance isn't tapped for either with the underprovisioned reference PCBs.Time will tell...
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the 290x will catch the 780ti, but I feel it is hampered by it's power delivery far more than the 780ti is.

The 780ti is just a ridiculous chip, and you pay for it.
 
It shows a very interesting thing IMO, it shows GK110 is a far more balanced architectute than AMD's counterpart.AMD's design may have some extra fat which is impeding it's potential.Look how well 7950/70 scales.
 
Jaydip said:
It shows a very interesting thing IMO, it shows GK110 is a far more balanced architectute than AMD's counterpart.AMD's design may have some extra fat which is impeding it's potential.Look how well 7950/70 scales.
Click to expand...

Hawaii is much more dense than Tahiti. Of course it's not going to clock as well.

GK110 has 14% more transistors but sub-14% performance advantage even with a higher clock. So I don't know how Hawaii is the one with extra fat.

If anything, AMD should have been less dear with the silicon instead of releasing an anorexic GPU, so it wouldn't have to run at maximum housefire all the time and people could get an actual overclock out of it like you could 7950s. But they had to cut corners somewhere right?
 
Last edited:
VulgarDisplay said:
I highly doubt the 290x will catch the 780ti, but I feel it is hampered by it's power delivery far more than the 780ti is.

The 780ti is just a ridiculous chip, and you pay for it.
Click to expand...
Yes u are so right that ridiculous chip has take over all AMD cards.

..And you earned yourself a day off on that note.

-Rvenger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the gtx 780 ti is a faster chip no doubt , though AMD partners have made some poor decisions with R9 290 / R9 290X cooling solutions which impact temps which to some extent affects overclocking .

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/r9-290x-case-performance,3710-2.html

"It turns out that the Asus and Gigabyte cards suffer the same problem. Instead of a solid base drawing heat away from the GPU, both employ evidently unfavorable direct-contact heat pipes. The tapered surfaces don't make sufficient contact with the GPU, especially the two outer pipes that essentially do nothing. A vapor chamber or massive sink would have been much more useful.

Then again, that's what you get when you recycle the same cooling found on Nvidia's GeForce GTX 780 for reasons of economics. Cheers, accountants!
Card

What do these thermal measurements tell us? A well-designed case won't necessarily impose higher temperatures on your graphics card, even if its GPU is notoriously hot and it employs axial fans that recirculates heat. The key appears to be a thermal solution optimized for the application, and not something tacked on as an afterthought."

Also Hawaii's outstanding transistor density comes at a cost. it runs hotter which in turn increases leakage power . Hawaii is more difficult to cool.

Hawaii - 6200 million transistors at 438 sq mm - 14.15 million transistors / per sq mm

GK110 - 7100 million transistors at 550 sq mm - 12.9 million transistors / per sq mm. few reports put GK110 die size at 561 sq mm which puts transistor density at 12.65 million transistors / per sq mm.

overall GK110 is a better on perf / watt while Hawaii is better at perf / sq mm. AMD does not have the 80% marketshare of the professional market and so cannot subsidize their high end GPUs as much as Nvidia. AMD needs to have smaller die sizes for the economics to work out.
 
I don't find it surprising. If you don't care about budgets and only game then the 780 ti is the best. The choices are pretty much the 290 for value or mining, or the 780 ti for the best. Neither of those overclocks were too spectacular, but they are not super far off of average. After that point it's silicon lottery so it's better than cherry picking the fastest card they could find.

According to hwbot (not the definitive source, but it should give a better sample than a single card)
290x 1152/2091MHz
780 ti 1183/2151MHz
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_r9_290x/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_780_ti/

OP highlights the deficiencies of the 780 ti, while it's 20 Mhz slower than average according to hwbot, the 290x is actually appearing to be even slower at 39 MHz slower than average. (negligible differences imo, about 20 Mz bigger difference than avg.)
 
raghu78 said:
Hawaii - 6200 million transistors at 438 sq mm - 14.15 million transistors / per sq mm

GK110 - 7100 million transistors at 550 sq mm - 12.9 million transistors / per sq mm. few reports put GK110 die size at 561 sq mm which puts transistor density at 12.65 million transistors / per sq mm.

overall GK110 is a better on perf / watt while Hawaii is better at perf / sq mm. AMD does not have the 80% marketshare of the professional market and so cannot subsidize their high end GPUs as much as Nvidia. AMD needs to have smaller die sizes for the economics to work out.
Click to expand...
I've wondered about why the Nvidia chip seems to run cooler. This definitely seems like it should be a significant factor.
 
The ASUS card didn't throttle at those temps?

It's a crap cooler, 2 heatpipes don't contact the Hawaii die, the cooler was designed for the bigger GK110.

Edit: It stayed at 1115mhz, didn't throttle.
 
Last edited:
Gloomy said:
Hawaii is much more dense than Tahiti. Of course it's not going to clock as well.

GK110 has 14% more transistors but sub-14% performance advantage even with a higher clock. So I don't know how Hawaii is the one with extra fat.

If anything, AMD should have been less dear with the silicon instead of releasing an anorexic GPU, so it wouldn't have to run at maximum housefire all the time and people could get an actual overclock out of it like you could 7950s. But they had to cut corners somewhere right?
Click to expand...

Hmm not really.680 clocked and scaled pretty bad compared to 780 but 780 has higher dnsity.
 
Last edited:
So with all of this nvidia should be in no hurry to release maxwell if their current line up of chips are doing so well due to careful optimizations and balance. Well I guess I made the right choice trying team green, as for a 780 ti when its price drops I might just get one. Trying to get in this so called enthusiast thing lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top