This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

nvidia gtx 780 ti bench released, beats r9 290x by 8 fps across the board

#11g7g7g7g7Posted 10/28/2013 1:20:04 PM
well is this the Titan Ultra that was rumored months ago? its been turned into a 780ti to compete with the 290x, should have known that NVidia wasn't going to sit about waiting till the 800 series to deal with the price disparity in the high end market.

Wonder what the price point will be on these things probably $150-200 higher than the 290x.

Will be a proper scunner to those that bought the $1000 dollar prototype they released, wonder what the resale price on a titan is going to be now.
---
You never see people quoting each other in sigs anymore. - Adam Laz
#12ThePCElitistPosted 10/28/2013 1:25:09 PM
DiehardFFv2 posted...
ThePCElitist posted...
DiehardFFv2 posted...
cainism25 posted...
DiehardFFv2 posted...
My guess is that it will still be priced at least a hundred dollars higher.


it also wont run at 94 celsius, guess u can buy a new cooler for around 100 bucks tho ;)


You winking at me conveys that you either think that we're friends, we're not, or that you're twelve.


My wink implies I want to sack you.

;) hey


At least you're not a new user.


I also hope you realize my post was satire of the situation. Lol
---
When I'm Miqo'te
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3LGf9SSWrU
#13DiehardFFv2Posted 10/28/2013 1:27:43 PM
ThePCElitist posted...
I also hope you realize my post was satire of the situation. Lol


Oh really? You don't say.
---
Intel i5 3570k | Sapphire r9 280x | 8GB DDR3 | 256GB SSD | 3TB HDD
#14KamenRiderBladePosted 10/28/2013 1:32:08 PM
The real question is, does the performance increase justify the cost?

Unless you have endless funds or don't care how much you spend on a GPU, most people do care about bang for your buck.

So does the GTX 780Ti's performance advantage over the R9 290X justify it's cost?

GTX 780 Ti = MSRP of $700
R9 290X = MSRP of $550

With the $150 price difference which equates to ~27.27% increase in price, the performance gap better be at least 27.27% or more IMO for somebody to swap to a GTX 780 Ti, otherwise I couldn't see the value in it.
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#15g7g7g7g7Posted 10/28/2013 1:38:09 PM
KamenRiderBlade posted...
The real question is, does the performance increase justify the cost?

Unless you have endless funds or don't care how much you spend on a GPU, most people do care about bang for your buck.

So does the GTX 780Ti's performance advantage over the R9 290X justify it's cost?

GTX 780 Ti = MSRP of $700
R9 290X = MSRP of $550

With the $150 price difference which equates to ~27.27% increase in price, the performance gap better be at least 27.27% or more IMO for somebody to swap to a GTX 780 Ti, otherwise I couldn't see the value in it.


Taking the price/performance logic into account, both cards get trashed by a secondhand gtx460 at $80....

Its about customer choice and the prestige of the brand alone justifies the cost for a lot of NVidia fans, but as for price/performance I think a 7870 wins out as the best value card for your money. I don't take sides in console or manufacturer rivalries as its silly to do so, I like the fact that I might get an NVidia card or an AMD Card I wouldn't like to be stuck with only one of the options.
---
You never see people quoting each other in sigs anymore. - Adam Laz
#16BuburibonPosted 10/28/2013 1:39:43 PM
Xeeh_Bitz posted...
VIP_Time posted...
Nice link.


http://news.softpedia.com/news/Benchmark-Shows-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-780-Ti-Is-Faster-that-Titan-Graphics-Card-394686.shtml


From the specs it looks like it's a slightly overclocked Titan (+6%). I suppose it still wouldn't beat your Titan, would it Xeeh?
---
3770K @ 4.5Ghz | 16GB | TITAN
Steam | PSN | XBL: GVAmson23
#17YukitoRamboPosted 10/28/2013 1:49:44 PM
8 more frames for over 100 bucks more? I get the temperature and power concerns but GPUs aint CPU. Its power demand is much more app specific(drawing the most when playing games, for average users like me). Power users who use GPUs more intensely on more than just games may see the difference but not me. R9 290X all the way.
---
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed" - Alexander Pope
#18ThePCElitistPosted 10/28/2013 1:53:00 PM
DiehardFFv2 posted...
ThePCElitist posted...
I also hope you realize my post was satire of the situation. Lol


Oh really? You don't say.


Unless you're into that.
---
When I'm Miqo'te
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3LGf9SSWrU
#19KamenRiderBladePosted 10/28/2013 2:05:11 PM
g7g7g7g7 posted...
KamenRiderBlade posted...
The real question is, does the performance increase justify the cost?

Unless you have endless funds or don't care how much you spend on a GPU, most people do care about bang for your buck.

So does the GTX 780Ti's performance advantage over the R9 290X justify it's cost?

GTX 780 Ti = MSRP of $700
R9 290X = MSRP of $550

With the $150 price difference which equates to ~27.27% increase in price, the performance gap better be at least 27.27% or more IMO for somebody to swap to a GTX 780 Ti, otherwise I couldn't see the value in it.


Taking the price/performance logic into account, both cards get trashed by a secondhand gtx460 at $80....

Its about customer choice and the prestige of the brand alone justifies the cost for a lot of NVidia fans, but as for price/performance I think a 7870 wins out as the best value card for your money. I don't take sides in console or manufacturer rivalries as its silly to do so, I like the fact that I might get an NVidia card or an AMD Card I wouldn't like to be stuck with only one of the options.


For me, it's about getting the most performance up to a certain price threshold where I can bare to part money with.

For me, that's the $300 area and the R9 280X won me over, especially the ASUS model with it's custom cooler.
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#20vader6185Posted 10/28/2013 2:52:28 PM
Nevermind the benchmark for the 780ti had a six core processor while the others had a quad core.