[XBIT] Radeon HD 7990 vs. GeForce GTX 690 and GeForce TITAN Performance Review

[Jaydip]

The full review is here
www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/...nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-geforce-gtx-titan.html
but I am particularly interested in the "Sniper Elite V2 Benchmark" posted at page 7 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/gr...eforce-gtx-690-geforce-gtx-titan_7.html#sect0 how Titan and many other cards tank more when MSAA is turned on? it is 8X MSAA , I can't believe those results.If someone has this game can they please post the benchmark results? thanks in advance.

 

[bystander36]

I don't quite follow. They all seemed to be hit similarly with 8xMSAA turned on. Hitman: Absolution was the one that had unexpected results for the Titan.

That said, for gaming, 8x MSAA seems excessive. I'd much rather use 4x MSAA unless you have way more FPS than needed.

 

[Jaydip]

I don't quite follow. They all seemed to be hit similarly with 8xMSAA turned on. Hitman: Absolution was the one that had unexpected results for the Titan.

That said, for gaming, 8x MSAA seems excessive. I'd much rather use 4x MSAA unless you have way more FPS than needed.

Titan is achieving higher minimum fps with 8X MSAA.

 

[Jaydip]

I don't quite follow. They all seemed to be hit similarly with 8xMSAA turned on. Hitman: Absolution was the one that had unexpected results for the Titan.

That said, for gaming, 8x MSAA seems excessive. I'd much rather use 4x MSAA unless you have way more FPS than needed.

Actually you will find that 8X MSAA was almost free in this game according to the review.

 

[3DVagabond]

Titan is achieving higher minimum fps with 8X MSAA.

The additional crossfire overhead could make for a lower minimum FPS.

 

[Jacky60]

Hitman Absolution and Crysis 3 demonstrate just how pitifully a $1000 'titanic' graphic card can perform with today's games. I think next generation games are going to make the Titan one of the poorest value 'flagships' ever made, in fact it probably already has that title. I don't really get the idea of dialling settings down e.g.4xMSAA rather than 8xMSAA. Is too much image quality 'excessive' and if so, why?

 

[boxleitnerb]

30-35% faster than the competition is "pitiful"? Sure Titan is terribly overpriced, but it also performs great.

 

[amenx]

Hitman Absolution and Crysis 3 demonstrate just how pitifully a $1000 'titanic' graphic card can perform with today's games. I think next generation games are going to make the Titan one of the poorest value 'flagships' ever made, in fact it probably already has that title.

If you think of the Titan in terms of value you simply miss the point. Its main appeal is to be the fastest single card without the drawbacks of multi-GPU setups. And to those who can afford it and appreciate that aspect of it, its worth it.

I don't really get the idea of dialling settings down e.g.4xMSAA rather than 8xMSAA. Is too much image quality 'excessive' and if so, why?

Have you ever experimented with AA settings? Do you see any noticeable difference between x4 and x8? Of course it may vary from game to game and type of AA, but oftentimes the difference is so negligible as to be not worth the performance hit.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hitman Absolution and Crysis 3 demonstrate just how pitifully a $1000 'titanic' graphic card can perform with today's games. I think next generation games are going to make the Titan one of the poorest value 'flagships' ever made, in fact it probably already has that title. I don't really get the idea of dialling settings down e.g.4xMSAA rather than 8xMSAA. Is too much image quality 'excessive' and if so, why?

After after-market 780s came out, the Titan is irrelevant unless you run compute tasks professionally.

After-market 780s are actually faster than Titan out of the box.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...it-geforce-gtx-780-super-jetstream-im-test/2/

NV should have allowed after-market solutions and voltage control to at least add some value to the Titan. Most disappointing of all is in the best looking PC game where GPU performance is most welcomed, the Titan's performance is lacklustre against a 1 year old 7970GE.

 

[boxleitnerb]

35% more performance is lacklustre...right. That's half a generational jump. Btw, Titan is 4 months old already, but that you conveniently forget. Could you at least *try* to be objective?

 

[Jaydip]

The additional crossfire overhead could make for a lower minimum FPS.

3D my question is simple, how can titan achieve higher minimum fps with 8x MSAA?

 

[GaiaHunter]

3D my question is simple, how can titan achieve higher minimum fps with 8x MSAA?

If you notice the 7990 is also getting a higher minimum @1080.

The answer is: "minimum fps without a time graphic are useless".

And anyway the 8xAA seems to be essentially free.

 

[SirPauly]

Where Titan may make sense are for the gamers that demand the very best -- professionals or compute reasoning based on double precision ---- surround platforms for 1440p and 1600p.

The percentage pricing differential from the GTX 770 to the GTX 780 is around 62 percent -- the percentage pricing differential from the GTX 780 to Titan is around 54 percent -- the percentage pricing differential from the GTX 760 to the GTX 770 is around 60 percent!

 

[tviceman]

Hitman Absolution and Crysis 3 demonstrate just how pitifully a $1000 'titanic' graphic card can perform with today's games. I think next generation games are going to make the Titan one of the poorest value 'flagships' ever made, in fact it probably already has that title. I don't really get the idea of dialling settings down e.g.4xMSAA rather than 8xMSAA. Is too much image quality 'excessive' and if so, why?

8x msaa pssssssss, that is for peasants. I run 8x SSAA or I don't play the game.


But in all seriousness, virtually nobody would be able to tell a difference between 4x and 8x msaa with 1080p or higher, unless you like to study screen shots rather than just play games.

 

[Jaydip]

If you notice the 7990 is also getting a higher minimum @1080.

The answer is: "minimum fps without a time graphic are useless".

And anyway the 8xAA seems to be essentially free.

I did notice it but it isn't as dramatic as Titan.Something looks to be messed up here.

 

[Skurge]

Where Titan may make sense are for the gamers that demand the very best -- professionals or compute reasoning based on double precision ---- surround platforms for 1440p and 1600p.

The percentage pricing differential from the GTX 770 to the GTX 780 is around 62 percent -- the percentage pricing differential from the GTX 780 to Titan is around 54 percent -- the percentage pricing differential from the GTX 760 to the GTX 770 is around 60 percent!

Ive never looked at it that way. Looks like nidia have it all figured out.

 

[SirPauly]

But in all seriousness, virtually nobody would be able to tell a difference between 4x and 8x msaa with 1080p or higher, unless you like to study screen shots rather than just play games.

I can't speak for everyone and subjective but x8 MSAA, particularly with longer near verticals and horizontals with strong color and lighting contrasts offer more quality than x4 MSAA while moving. The higher the AA samples; the more diminishing returns. For me, the diminishing return ball starts rolling after x8 MSAA; for others it may be x4 MSAA; for others it may be x2 MSAA at 1080p.

For example: The very first illustration I offered to share was years and years ago with the first FarCry and the training level, where the carrier came into view -- based on longer near verticals and horizontals, with strong color contrasts.

FarCry was a poster child for reasons for improved image quality based on large open environments, need for alpha test aliasing innovation, specular and shading aliasing, flexibility for improvements with HDR+AA, more sample flexibility, improved filtering.

 

[Stuka87]

Is the Titan fast? Yes.

Is its 35% gain over the 7970GE worth $650? Hell no. Even when the Titan launched and the 7970GE was $450, it still was not worth the extra $550.

Sure people with money trees will buy them. But that does not make them a good value. The 780 is a better deal than the Titan, but still over priced IMHO.

O and as for MSAA 4x vs 8x. Depends on the game and the monitor used. In most cases, the differences are tiny.

 

[master_shake_]

the gtx 780 is/was a slap in the face of every titan owner...

650 dollar card that is on average maybe 7-9 percent slower than the 1000 dollar card that preceded it.

 

[wilds]

Titan is a great all-in-one card. Are you a professional who needs excellent GPGPU compute and wants to game on the same system? Titan is for you. Whoever bought Titan just to play games either had $1k to blow, or just was too impatient for the 780.

 

[Final8ty]

I can't speak for everyone and subjective but x8 MSAA, particularly with longer near verticals and horizontals with strong color and lighting contrasts offer more quality than x4 MSAA while moving. The higher the AA samples; the more diminishing returns. For me, the diminishing return ball starts rolling after x8 MSAA; for others it may be x4 MSAA; for others it may be x2 MSAA at 1080p.

For example: The very first illustration I offered to share was years and years ago with the first FarCry and the training level, where the carrier came into view -- based on longer near verticals and horizontals, with strong color contrasts.

FarCry was a poster child for reasons for improved image quality based on large open environments, need for alpha test aliasing innovation, specular and shading aliasing, flexibility for improvements with HDR+AA, more sample flexibility, improved filtering.

I have to agree.
I went 2560x1600 in 2006 and it really does depend on the game as to how much AA is needed and i find for me 4xAA - 8xAA is noticeable more often than not, 8xAA - 16xAA not so much and that i need to go SSAA to notice a difference.

 

[RussianSensation]

35% more performance is lacklustre...right. That's half a generational jump. Btw, Titan is 4 months old already, but that you conveniently forget. Could you at least *try* to be objective?

1. 35%? Ok at 1080P where it is getting owned hard by HD7990/GTX690 in a game where the Titan should have shined the most. Those other cards are nearly 30% faster. Also 47 fps at 1080P average is barely beating HD7990's minimums.

2. At higher resolution, it gets worse. HD7970GE vs. Titan is only moving from 33 fps to 42 fps at 1440P is only 27%. You are paying $600+ more for 9 fps more? WOW!! RIP-OFF central. Stop focusing on percentages and a look at the actual frame rates.

You call it half a generational jump, but the price is nearly 3x more for only 12 fps at 1080P and 9 fps at 1440P. In other words the Titan is too slow for GPU demanding games relative to its asking price. It's impossible to ignore how overpriced it is considering after-market 780s are actually as fast or faster out of the box. You bringing up the fact that the Titan is 4 months old only exacerbates how awful the card is because it is now being beaten by GTX780 after-market cards that cost less.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...it-geforce-gtx-780-super-jetstream-im-test/2/

It's mind-boggling to think that for $1300, GTX780 SLI would beat the Titan by 80-90% in Crysis 3 for only $300 more and yet the Titan itself offers only 27-35% more performance over HD7970GE in the same title for $600 more.

 

[boxleitnerb]

1. 35%? Ok at 1080P where it is getting owned hard by HD7990/GTX690 in a game where the Titan should have shined the most. Those other cards are nearly 28% faster. Also 47 fps at 1080P average is barely beating HD7990's minimums.

2. At higher resolution, it gets worse. HD7970GE vs. Titan is only moving from 33 fps to 42 fps at 1440P is only 27%. You are paying $600+ more for 9 fps more? WOW!! RIP-OFF central. Stop focusing on percentages and a look at the actual frame rates.

You call it half a generational jump, but the price is nearly 3x more for only 12 fps at 1080P and 9 fps at 1440P.

In other words the Titan is too slow for GPU demanding games relative to its asking price. It's impossible to ignore how overpriced it is considering after-market 780s are actually as fast or faster out of the box.

Those other cards have two GPUs in case you didn't notice. SLI/CF-fps != Single-GPU fps. To compare especially CF with a SingleGPU is idiotic. 47/35=135%
It IS half a generational jump, there is no denying it.

The 780 is a way better deal, that much is clear. Still your attempt to badmouth the performance itself is disgustingly biased. Percentages are valid - nobody forces you to play at (for your taste!) unplayable fps or settings. They can be adjusted...

Honestly RS...I agree that Titan is bad value. But I don't agree with your one-sided approach in this and other discussions. You forget important information tidbits (like that Titan is already 4 months old), compare SGPU with AFR without a second thought, generalize about compute and ignore important facts like specs, compare OC vs non-OC cards etc.pp.
This has become a habit of yours, and a bad one at that in my opinion. You should work on that.

 

[BFG10K]

But in all seriousness, virtually nobody would be able to tell a difference between 4x and 8x msaa with 1080p or higher, unless you like to study screen shots rather than just play games.

I can't agree there; with regular geometry 4xMSAA can be visibly inadequate during gaming compared to 8xMSAA on high contrast edges (for example).

At times it's actually quite easy to spot at 2560x1600 during actual gaming.

 

[tviceman]

I can't agree there; with regular geometry 4xMSAA can be visibly inadequate during gaming compared to 8xMSAA on high contrast edges (for example).

At times it's actually quite easy to spot at 2560x1600 during actual gaming.

To each his own, I don't pay attention or notice much aliasing when I'm playing, especially at 2560x1440. The bump in image quality moving from 4x to 8x is so insignificant, that I groan, loathe, and immediately discard arguments in which people use it to say one card is better than another. For you perhaps, and maybe 3 other people, but 99.999% of everyone else it is such a useless bullet point.