• 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.

The GTX 780, 770, 760 ti Thread *First review leaked $700+?*

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
tviceman said:
Has this been posted yet? Supposed box art for an Inno3D gtx780. Article says 12 SMX's 384-bit bus. IMO that is better than 13 SMX's and 320-bit bus. And 3gb of vram? I think that raises the possibility of $599 instead of the $699-749 price tag that has been suggested/rumored/hinted at.

http://videocardz.com/41483/inno3d-geforce-gtx-780-boxing-pictured-specifications-confirmed
Click to expand...

3gb should be the sweet spot for 99% of all titles today. this lesser vram saving will be welcome by many.



Fx1 said:
The GPU will choke long before the VRAM runs out.
Click to expand...

not - if you plannning to go tri-sli.
 
UaVaj said:
3gb should be the sweet spot for 99% of all titles today. this lesser vram saving will be welcome by many.





not - if you plannning to go tri-sli.
Click to expand...

3GB is perfect for 1080p gaming. Exactly why I bought my 7950 and I only paid $260.

Really crazy how Nvidia is now Apple. 2GB was plenty for gaming and 3GB wasn't needed.. Until Nvidia invented the 3GB card and now it's needed for gaming.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
1/24th DP should drive the price back down to sanity.

Edit: Has there been any real information on yield issues for either side? Why are we assuming anyone is having yield issues? Nvidia was ahead of schedule on K20X. Where is the proof that shows they're having issues making working chips off each wafer?
Click to expand...

Going back to a preview of K20, here at Anands, Nvidia stated they were getting good yields, better than (anticipated/worst case). As reported by Ryan , Anand in those articles.
The old 'what else are they going to say' can be countered with any response to yield issues, but that's what was put forth.
The issue was, they couldn't get enough wafers to meet demand.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
3GB is perfect for 1080p gaming. Exactly why I bought my 7950 and I only paid $260.

Really crazy how Nvidia is now Apple. 2GB was plenty for gaming and 3GB wasn't needed.. Until Nvidia invented the 3GB card and now it's needed for gaming.
Click to expand...

as fx1 pointed out. a single gpu will choke before it ever fully uses 3gb vram.

even with surround gaming - 5760x1080. have yet to exceed 2.5gb vram.

prior gaming - 1920x1080. have yet to exceed 1.5gb vram
 
UaVaj said:
as fx1 pointed out. a single gpu will choke before it ever fully uses 3gb vram.

even with surround gaming - 5760x1080. have yet to exceed 2.5gb vram.

prior gaming - 1920x1080. have yet to exceed 1.5gb vram
Click to expand...

I've seen over 2GB on non modded skyrim 1080p. So I personally would not feel comfortable with less than 3. But of course now that Nvidia has brought 3GB cards to the market it's an absolute minimum.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
I've seen over 2GB on non modded skyrim 1080p. So I personally would not feel comfortable with less than 3. But of course now that Nvidia has brought 3GB cards to the market it's an absolute minimum.
Click to expand...

I doubt the gaming companies would agree with you.

With the mainstream segment of graphics cards ($150 - $200) being 2 gB cards all around until at least 20nm gets here, game companies will not be upping the texture resolution in a meaningful artistic way above 2 gB @ 1080p until at least 20nm gets here. The 660Ti, 670, and 680 being 2 gB were just absolute guarantees for this scenario to play out this way.

Since the 760Ti and 770 are most likely going to be 2 gB still, this part of the equation has not changed for the game companies yet.
 
iMacmatician said:
950 MHz base and 980 MHz boost clocks? What? That seems quite low….
Click to expand...

The advertised boost is pretty much a non-factor because they boost higher out of the box the majority of the time. It isn't a set clock or boost speed; the binning of the chip determines the final boost and that is variable. Fortunately, it is usually a lot higher than what the advertised boost speed is.
 
Communism said:
I doubt the gaming companies would agree with you.

With the mainstream segment of graphics cards ($150 - $200) being 2 gB cards all around until at least 20nm gets here, game companies will not be upping the texture resolution in a meaningful artistic way above 2 gB @ 1080p until at least 20nm gets here. The 660Ti, 670, and 680 being 2 gB were just absolute guarantees for this scenario to play out this way.

Since the 760Ti and 770 are most likely going to be 2 gB still, this part of the equation has not changed for the game companies yet.
Click to expand...

I'm referencing the Nvidia fanboys. Watch now that Nvidia has a 3gb mainstream card. All of a sudden everyone here will be singing the 3GB praises when previously the 2GB 680 was the best.
 
blackened23 said:
The advertised boost is pretty much a non-factor because they boost higher out of the box the majority of the time. It isn't a set clock or boost speed; the binning of the chip determines the final boost and that is variable. Fortunately, it is usually a lot higher than what the advertised boost speed is.
Click to expand...

Also remember that the boost is limited to keeping the card at 80c as well.

With a huge step up in default cooler in the form of the 770 (and perhaps a TDP bump), the actual boost speed will definitely be staying steadily far higher than 680 in pretty much all scenarios.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
I'm referencing the Nvidia fanboys. Watch now that Nvidia has a 3gb mainstream card. All of a sudden everyone here will be singing the 3GB praises when previously the 2GB 680 was the best.
Click to expand...

Well, that could certainly be considered a circular argument. The "Well you did this! No you did!" argument can go on forever, the fact of the matter is that both sides have hypocrites that will state things solely to bolster their argument in their view. It's really nothing new and not worth bringing up, it's just an endless circular argument. We all know it, we all see it from both camps, it's really not worth bringing up IMHO.
 
The reason I wanted a 3GB card so badly was for modded Skyrim. Any other games I play @ 1080P with high to max settings run under 2GB (1.4-1.6GB). I still think GTX 570's and 580's would be better performers if they had 2GB of vram.

I am kind of bummed the GTX 770 is supposed to only have 2GB of vram, but like other's have said the 4GB will be an option.
 
Last edited:
OILFIELDTRASH said:
I'm referencing the Nvidia fanboys. Watch now that Nvidia has a 3gb mainstream card. All of a sudden everyone here will be singing the 3GB praises when previously the 2GB 680 was the best.
Click to expand...

2 gigs is fine for me still, but glad nVidia's partners offer more ram and go beyond reference for the potential gamers that desire more.
 
760ti SLI is going to epic performance. 690 GTX speeds for hardly any money. 400 euro Titan killer
 
Last edited:
Quite frankly you can get very close to Titan with just 660 SLI:

Unigine Valley
TITAN @ 1170/1563 - 2900
660 SSLI @ 1282/1650 - 2863

That's 99% of a Titan right there, for under $400.
 
willomz said:
Quite frankly you can get very close to Titan with just 660 SLI:

Unigine Valley
TITAN @ 1170/1563 - 2900
660 SSLI @ 1282/1650 - 2863

That's 99% of a Titan right there, for under $400.
Click to expand...

just about all synthetics have almost perfect SLI/Crossfire scaling and have hilariously low memory bandwidth and video ram requirements.

Use a real game please.
 
Communism said:
just about all synthetics have almost perfect SLI/Crossfire scaling and have hilariously low memory bandwidth and video ram requirements.

Use a real game please.
Click to expand...

Actually the Valley benchmark makes great use of improved bandwidth. Adjusting memory clocks will greatly increase your score. But I do agree, that most games will be a different outcome vs. Synthetics.
 
Last edited:
Communism said:
just about all synthetics have almost perfect SLI/Crossfire scaling and have hilariously low memory bandwidth and video ram requirements.

Use a real game please.
Click to expand...

Crysis 3

Titan 50.5 fps
660 SLI 49.8 fps

99% of Titan performance in a real game.
 
willomz said:
Crysis 3

Titan 50.5 fps
660 SLI 49.8 fps

99% of Titan performance in a real game.
Click to expand...

Yes, Cry-engine 3 and Frostbite 2 are very scalable due to the almost entirely deferred rendering used.

Outside of those two engines would be a better indication of most PC games.

I do accept your evidence as very plausible though 😀
 
Communism said:
Yes, Cry-engine 3 and Frostbite 2 are very scalable due to the almost entirely deferred rendering used.

Outside of those two engines would be a better indication of most PC games.

I do accept your evidence as very plausible though 😀
Click to expand...

I don't think 660ti SLI coming close to Titan is an unreasonable statement - consider that Titan is roughly 15% short of the 690. With that in mind, 660 SLI can certainly come close. Now, Titan differentiates itself by being a far better card for surround and high resolutions due to the greater VRAM buffer, and being a single card solution without the added heat and noise of SLI.

OTOH, obviously, some feel that SLI has pitfalls but I've actually been really impressed with it - take for instance, frametime graphs of SLI configurations being awfully, awfully close to single cards as anecdotal evidence. Nvidia spent a lot of time implementing frame metering in the Kepler series and it shows, I've actually gotten quite fond of SLI over the past 8 months or so of using it. Because it works, it's smooth, and it's reliable. I won't bother you with linking graphs to frametimes but SLI is really really good in the smoothness department, it's almost the same as a single card with nvidia's frame pacing. That isn't to say that single cards will be better for some users, but SLI works very well.

Additionally, while scaling does vary from game to game, SLI more often than not scales very well. I haven't played a game yet that doesn't benefit greatly from it. So....I don't think 660ti coming close to titan is unreasonable at all in terms of raw performance, but you will have severe performance dropoffs at high resolutions and surround. In those cases Titan will be better.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top