[Videocards][Rumor] New king coming soon - GTX 780 TI 3DMark score revealed

[BallaTheFeared]

Because the R290X is nearly a year late compared to the Titan, has worse DP performance than the 7970 and doesn't have CUDA.

 

[tviceman]

Why would AMD have to lower the price when the 290x can edge out the Titan too? Nvidia would have to price the 780 at $450 for this to happen. Remember the 290x has more VRAM too.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35653486&postcount=20

If 780's end up matching R290x's when both are overclocked, then it only needs a $100 price cut according to the same logic of everyone who bought 7970's on here. Equal performance when OC'd, but the 780's have quieter operation, lower thermals, 150-200 watts less power use, and the same cost w/ $100 price cut. Even if OC'd 780's are 5% slower on average vs. OC'd r290x's, the intangibles listed in the previous sentence still make it worthwhile trade off to many people at equal prices.

But yes, the 780 needs a price cut.

Early data points to R290x's having limited overclocking capabilities on air, and massive power draw when overvolted. I'd take a similarly priced, quieter, and lower power-using gtx780 over an r290x any day. But as it is, neither card is good IMO. Not the gtx780 at $650, and not the r290x with it's horrid temps, noise, and limited headroom at stock voltage.

 

[Teizo]

Who exactly did I personally attack? I don't see a name in my post, do you? Nice try :thumbsup:

But whatever, keep polluting the forum with fanboy drivel so it can lose whatever little credibility it has left.

Well, calling the OP a crying Nvidiot is rather hard to not notice. Nice try at playing innocent :thumbsup:


And just to point it out again. It is rather amusing how with the 7950/7970 overclocking was such a great thing because once you did it, the 760 and 770 could not keep up so they were deemed horrible buys and inferior products.

Now all of a sudden overclocking is inadmissible evidence since the 290X doesn't have much OC headroom compared to the 780...so harping on the Titan's price is the best way to posture it in the market.

I won't argue it though, $549 is a good price. But, if AMD could charge more for it, they would. Considering you have to buy a waterblock to keep it's thermals under control...they could not charge $599 or $649 because the price/performance moniker they claim to showcase would not work.

And on that note, at least one great thing that is going to come out of G-Sync is that all this senseless bickering of who's e-penis is bigger, I mean graphics card has the most fps, is that quality, smooth, gameplay will be obtainable with lower framerates so that higher efficiency, lower power designs, can take center stage since it won't be necessary to have umpteenmillion fps running through fraps in order to enjoy a solid gaming experience on high settings.

 

[Rvenger]

It would certainly make the 780 a great value though. Its a great card and you can always overclock to squeeze out that extra performance. I just hope Nvidia prices it lower but I just can't see them knocking $150 off a card that was released 5 months ago.

 

[blackened23]

Now all of a sudden overclocking is inadmissible evidence since the 290X doesn't have much OC headroom compared to the 780...so harping on the Titan's price is the best way to posture it in the market.

I see what you're saying here but you could go on for days about how both sides have been hypocritical at various times throughout posting. Everyone does this. The NV guys latched onto efficiency when the 7970 was released, after the entire Fermi thing most likely. Now the opposite has happened - I guess everyone latches on to whatever argument suits them the best regardless of what brand they prefer - The NV guys do it, so do the AMD guys. This is nothing new.

Anyway, I think stating that 290X is AMD's Fermi wouldn't be terribly inaccurate - but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I never said anything negative about the GTX 480 at launch (I wasn't even here on the forum then LOL), it is what it is. Great performance for 550$, outstanding performance actually. I will say the 480 had a hefty price premium whereas the 290X is a much better value in comparison to other market offerings.

I can't overlook the noise though, I really don't like AMD's reference cooler. That's my personal preference now, and I don't like water cooling because it's a huge PITA to set up a custom loop. I would have in the past when I had more time on my hands but definitely not these days.... All in all it's a high performing and very flawed product - ignoring the price, the 780OC is a better "balance" overall. It's just priced way higher for less performance at stock. Anyway, hopefully the aftermarket editions can correct the noise situation with the 290X.

I do have a question for anyone that owns a 290X, though. Is the reference cooler more or less the "same" in terms of noise as the 7970 cooler? If it's 40% in quiet mode I can't see how that is noisy at all. Although the card will obvious not perform as well in quiet mode. I know the 7970 cooler wasn't "noisy" at 40%, but definitely worse than the Titan shroud cooler for sure.

 

[Rvenger]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35653486&postcount=20

And again, when I receive my 290x I will be testing thermals and acoustics on the reference cooler.

My 780 hit 80c and started throttling within minutes of firing up a game, especially FarCry 3. I had to keep the fan at 55% speed in order to keep it under 75c.



..And where did you pull the "150-200 watts less power use" from?



Anyways, back on topic.

 

[Teizo]

I see what you're saying here but you could go on for days about how both sides have been hypocritical at various times throughout posting. Everyone does this. The NV guys latched onto efficiency when the 7970 was released, after the entire Fermi thing most likely. Now the opposite has happened - I guess everyone latches on to whatever argument suits them the best regardless of what brand they prefer - The NV guys do it, so do the AMD guys.

Yes, I know. I'm not claiming one side better/worse than another. I find the whole thing amusing and actually am looking more forward than ever to G-Sync because nuclear reactors posing as gpu's won't necessarily be needed in order to play games with quality settings.

If you can do the same thing, but use less power and produce less heat to do it....that is a good thing :thumbsup:

My 780 hit 80c and started throttling within minutes of firing up a game, especially FarCry 3. I had to keep the fan at 55% speed in order to keep it under 75c..

With GPU Boost 2.0 you can change the Power/Thermal limit if you wish. Not sure what you are arguing here. Fact of the matter is, the 780 CAN run @ 95C if you want it to/let it. There is more room to adjust frequency and volts higher and get more performance if you desire. Question is..why on earth would you want to outside of a short benchmark run?

 

[chimaxi83]

I do have a question for anyone that owns a 290X, though. Is the reference cooler more or less the "same" in terms of noise as the 7970 cooler? If it's 40% in quiet mode I can't see how that is noisy at all. Although the card will obvious not perform as well in quiet mode. I know the 7970 cooler wasn't "noisy" at 40%, but definitely worse than the Titan shroud cooler for sure.

At 40% it's nearly inaudible, but it's a very fine line because right around 45%, I can start to make it out over my case fans. At 50% it's louder than my case fans. I keep those relatively low speed. At 100%, it is definitely, without a doubt, a jet turbine. The damaged hearing claims were idiotic though. Anyway, it seems to be louder than I remember my reference 7970 being, but that was at launch so my memory is foggy.

 

[tviceman]

And again, when I receive my 290x I will be testing thermals and acoustics on the reference cooler.

Acoustics is subjective, but opinions are always welcome. I am sensitive enough that I dislike even when my twin frozr starts to ramp up, so I adjust fan speed profiles to keep it quiet at all times.

My 780 hit 80c and started throttling within minutes of firing up a game, especially FarCry 3. I had to keep the fan at 55% speed in order to keep it under 75c.

All you have to do to fix that is adjust the thermal limit to 85 degrees. That is a 7 second fix.

..And where did you pull the "150-200 watts less power use" from?

Overclocked 780's and Titans might draw another 60-70 watts for a good overclock, whereas TPU's R290x had the following scenario:

"Power draw also increases immensely, going from just above 400 W for the whole system to around 650 W!" - W1zzard

 

[2is]

I won't argue it though, $549 is a good price. But, if AMD could charge more for it, they would. Considering you have to buy a waterblock to keep it's thermals under control...they could not charge $599 or $649 because the price/performance moniker they claim to showcase would not work.

And on that note, at least one great thing that is going to come out of G-Sync is that all this senseless bickering of who's e-penis is bigger, I mean graphics card has the most fps, is that quality, smooth, gameplay will be obtainable with lower framerates so that higher efficiency, lower power designs, can take center stage since it won't be necessary to have umpteenmillion fps running through fraps in order to enjoy a solid gaming experience on high settings.

I don't know about all that. Even with the throttling, the 290x is giving Titan a run for it's money and even beating it, at nearly half the price. AMD could easily charge more for this, and they probably should have charged more while at the same time having a better cooler on it

 

[toyota]

Because the R290X is nearly a year late compared to the Titan, has worse DP performance than the 7970 and doesn't have CUDA.

lol a year late. its 8 months which is much closer to being half a year than being a year.

 

[blackened23]

Overclocked 780's and Titans might draw another 60-70 watts for a good overclock, whereas TPU's R290x had the following scenario:

Just to add a minor correction: you're comparing a voltage adjusted overclock on the 290X to a stock voltage overclock on the 780OC. When you adjust the voltage on Kepler, make no mistake, it uses a ton of juice - you can look at various reviews of the lightning and classified cards at 1.3V+ and they easily use as much as 290X. It's not like 290X uses a ton of juice just from an overclock - it's the over-voltage that does this, and your charts state as much. This is also true of Kepler as well, to be completely fair. You can look at posts from all those guys running the skynet BIOS for their Titan at OCN and their power consumption figures are bonkers. That's what over-voltage does.

In itself, it's not a big deal. When it leads to noise, that bothers me. The AMD cooler just isn't as good as the Titan shroud in that respect, and the 290X uses more juice at stock voltage as well. For the price, that's mostly forgivable although some will pay for the 780OC which is a better balanced product when ignoring price. I think the bottom line is that AMD should have made a better cooler, and that is regrettable. I think this *can* be corrected by AIB's with aftermarket cooling, and then it becomes a more desirable product by far.

That said, you don't necessarily NEED over-voltage with Kepler to overclock. Most of the 780OC editions such as the 780 SC ACX are at stock voltage and boosting to around 1100 out of box, which is still close to Titan levels of performance. I also don't even know if stock voltage overclocking is possible on the 290X. LOL. That sounds stupid, but looking at screen captures of the new CCC - it seems that it has a voltage/clockspeed adjustment that changes both simultaneously. But i'm not sure - again if someone can chime in on that, please do.

 

[tviceman]

lol a year late. its 8 months which is much closer to being half a year than being a year.

Hey it's what everyone does here! gtx680 was 6 months late, R290x was a year late, gtx780ti will be 3 months late, 20nm is 4 years late.....

 

[Grooveriding]

The 290x is generally running at about 850mhz while gaming and performing like Titan. If they would of put a much better cooler on there letting it run at 1ghz consistently it would of been better IMO, even at $600. Now you would have a card beating Titan and still costing less, but it seems 780 was their target.

I am going to get an aftermarket R9 plain once they are out, just need a good model. I have a twinfrozr 7950 but that thing is noisy under a heavy load IMO. Maybe a vapor-x this time. I am hoping 1ghz sustained 290 = titan for $450.

About over volted gk110. Check out OCN, 1.3v gk110 = 400w consumption and needs water to stay cool enough. Plus you can only legit over volt with granular voltage control on one SKU. GPUs are just like CPUs, they have a sweet spot of voltage to clocks and gk110 sits in its very nicely. Raise the volts and that changes to high heat and high power consumption for about 150mhz more.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

From what I've seen it doesn't scale well with overclocking, even on water. I haven't seen a lot though, but if that holds true that alone will be the biggest letdown of R290X.

I could live with the garbage reference cooler, the more power hungry nature of the beast, if it had some amazing unlockable potential but it just doesn't seem to be there. Hopefully it was just poor testing or something else, but considering who the results came from I find that highly unlikely.

 

[toyota]

Hey it's what everyone does here! gtx680 was 6 months late, R290x was a year late, gtx780ti will be 3 months late, 20nm is 4 years late.....

lol just 6 more months to Christmas. and I have not had a birthday in nearly 2 years...

 

[BallaTheFeared]

lol just 6 more months to Christmas. and I have not had a birthday in nearly 2 years...

lol, I think if we were to nitpick we could say Titan came out in Nov of 2012, they just didn't brand it for us until Feb.

 

[blackened23]

From what I've seen it doesn't scale well with overclocking, even on water. I haven't seen a lot though, but if that holds true that alone will be the biggest letdown of R290X.

I could live with the garbage reference cooler, the more power hungry nature of the beast, if it had some amazing unlockable potential but it just doesn't seem to be there. Hopefully it was just poor testing or something else, but considering who the results came from I find that highly unlikely.

I'd have to disagree - the scaling seems pretty good. Legitreviews got a 115mhz overclock and their benchmarks showed up to a 13% increase. That's pretty respectable IMHO. The downside is that you can't realistically overclock in "quiet" mode, that's the main detraction. To maintain clockspeeds you must use Uber mode to overclock from what i've read or it's a non-starter. And that obviously won't be quiet. As far as scaling? I think it's very good. 13% from around 100mhz is not bad, not bad at all.

But that comes at a cost obviously. Noise and heat, depending on whether you use over-voltage or not. I don't know how far aftermarket cooling can go to address this, but i'm interested in seeing that. To be completely fair, the 780 reference doesn't have outstanding OC ability either - you really need one of those aftermarket cards to spread the 780's wings in terms of clockspeeds. I don't know if the 290X will be similar in that respect or whether it will be a voltage wall. I guess that's the main reason the 780OC is a more balanced product if ignoring product cost - You can get around 100mhz out of most of those and have a quiet card to boot. It really is too bad that aftermarket 290X cards weren't available from the get-go. That would have made the launch so so much better.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The problem is it's competing with reference 780s with better coolers that can maintain higher overclocks at more respectable noise levels. Even the results I seen of water cooled R290X at 1.3v left a lot to be desired.

I can't honestly say I have a grasp on what the actual performance of R290X is at a given clock, because of the severe throttling and different benchmarking methods it is impossible for me to know. However when I see end users with cards that aren't throttling, overvolted, and overclocked to 1250MHz and memory OC issues cropping up things just aren't as rosy as I would have thought they'd be for the R290X.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

The problem is it's competing with reference 780s with better coolers that can maintain higher overclocks at more respectable noise levels. Even the results I seen of water cooled R290X at 1.3v left a lot to be desired.

I can't honestly say I have a grasp on what the actual performance of R290X is at a given clock, because of the severe throttling and different benchmarking methods it is impossible for me to know. However when I see end users with cards that aren't throttling, overvolted, and overclocked to 1250MHz and memory OC issues cropping up things just aren't as rosy as I would have thought they'd be for the R290X.

Are there some benchmark that shows 1.3v 1250mhz performance? As far as I know the only thing anyone has seen is "We have the 290x clocked at 1.3v 1250mhz" with no actual benchmarks. The person with the 1250mhz 290x could be paring it with some lame duck CPU making the benchmarks look bad.

 

[Will Robinson]

The problem is it's competing with reference 780s with better coolers that can maintain higher overclocks at more respectable noise levels. Even the results I seen of water cooled R290X at 1.3v left a lot to be desired.

I can't honestly say I have a grasp on what the actual performance of R290X is at a given clock, because of the severe throttling and different benchmarking methods it is impossible for me to know. However when I see end users with cards that aren't throttling, overvolted, and overclocked to 1250MHz and memory OC issues cropping up things just aren't as rosy as I would have thought they'd be for the R290X.

Its really quite easy Balla.
At stock speeds R9 290X easily beats a $650 GTX780 and quite often beats a $1000 Titan.
That's all you need to know.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It's on OCN, believe they're using a 4.5GHz quad core Ivy Bridge 2011 chip.

Its really quite easy Balla.
At stock speeds R9 290X easily beats a $650 GTX780 and quite often beats a $1000 Titan.
That's all you need to know.

I'd care more if I wasn't an overclocker :|

Even in my save the trees phase I'm still running 4.8GHz on my cpu and 1100/1500 on my video card(s).

I can't help if that's super efficient at the same time!

Although I am using i-mode, which is good for about 7-8 watts at idle and a bit more for web playback, worth at least a tree a year.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

It's on OCN, believe they're using a 4.5GHz quad core Ivy Bridge 2011 chip.

Looking at many of the benchmarks and how close the gtx780, Titan, and 290x are I can't help but wonder if they are CPU limited even at higher resolutions.

CPU's have slowed progress considerably, while GPU's have slowed but still show pretty big improvements each generation.

 

[Grooveriding]

No worries boys, scaling is fine.

Cue excuses, tangents, denials.. rabble rabble rabble.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Well I do have more power and at 1080p, there is a reason I run my i5 at 4.8GHz...

I hope that is the case, I was really wishing we'd see a monster chip that would stretch it's legs out against the competition under water.