Nvidia GTX 780 Ti Review: A Powerful GPU With A Price To Match

The GTX 780 Ti just about pushes Nvidia back to the top of the GPU performance pile, but its price is far from competitive.

For the vast majority of PC players, 1080p is the benchmark for performance, and by far the most popular resolution in use for gaming (at least according to the latest Steam Hardware Survey). Games look great at 1080p, monitors are cheap and plentiful, and you don't need to spend a fortune on an insanely powerful GPU to drive them. But if you're running multiple monitors, high resolutions like 1600p or 4K, or if you're simply after some bragging rights, then the likes of a GTX 650 Ti or Radeon 7850 just aren't going to cut it.

Enter the GTX 780 Ti, the latest GPU from Nvidia based on the GK110 chip. That's the same full-fat Kepler chip used in the GTX Titan and GTX 780, both of which are already excellent performers at high-resolutions. The trouble is, they aren't the best performers anymore. AMD's latest R9 290X and R9 290 have benchmarked extremely well, not only taking the performance crown from their rival, but also seriously undercutting it in terms of price. Nvidia's latest round of price cuts evens the playing field somewhat, but there's nothing quite like the prestige of having "the world's fastest graphics card".

The 780 Ti, then, has a big job ahead of it. At an RRP of $699 (£559 in the UK), it's still around $100 more expensive than the 290X, so it isn't going to be winning any awards for value. In terms of performance, though, it's very impressive. The 780 Ti is the first GPU to make use of the entire GK110 chip, that is, the full 2880 single precision CUDA cores, 240 texture units, and 48 ROP units. Memory comes in the form of 3GB of extremely fast 7Gbps GDDR5 for 336GB/s of bandwidth, while the base clock speed gets a bump to 845Mhz, and the boost clock speed to 928Mhz. It does lack scientific features like HyperQ and high-end 64 bit performance, but on paper at least, the GTX 780 Ti is the most powerful gaming card Nvidia's released.

GTX 780 Ti GPU SpecsGTX 780 Ti Memory Specs

2880 CUDA Cores
845 Base Clock (MHz)
928 Boost Clock (MHz)
210 GigaTexels/sex Texture Filtering Rate
240 Texture Units
48 ROP units

7.0 Gbps Memory Clock
3072 MB Standard Memory Config
GDDR5 Memory Interface
384-bit GDDR5 Memory Interface Width
336 GB/s Memory Bandwidth
GTX 780 Ti Software SupportGTX 780 Ti Display Support
OpenGL 4.3
PCI Express 3.0
GPU Boost 2.0, 3D Vision, CUDA, DirectX 11, PhysX, TXAA, Adaptive VSync, FXAA, 3D Vision Surround, SLI-ready
Four displays for Multi Monitor
4096x2160 Maximum Digital Resolution
2048x1536 Maximum VGA Resolution
Two Dual Link DVI, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
GTX 780 Ti DimensionsGTX 780 Ti Power Specs
10.5 inches Length
4.3 inches Height
Dual-slot Width
250 W TDP
600 W Recommended Power Supply
One 8-pin and one 6-pin Power Connector


Like all of Nvidia's GPUs, the 780 Ti comes bundled with GeForce Experience (GFE), an application that automatically optimizes the graphics settings of your games based upon your hardware. GFE automatically updates your drivers and scans your games library for supported games, aiming to target settings that achieve 40 to 60 frames per second. Since its release earlier in the year, GFE's performance has improved by leaps and bounds, with many more supported games and optimal settings chosen. Naturally, you'll be able to eke out more performance by diving in and editing things manually, but if you're happy to let GFE do the job for you, the results are impressive.

Also part of the 780 Ti software package is ShadowPlay, a gameplay capture system that leverages the H.264 encoder built into Kepler (600, 700 series) GPUs. It automatically records the last 20 minutes of gameplay at up to 1080p60 at 50Mbps in automatic mode, but you can record as much footage as your hard drive allows in manual mode. ShadowPlay's also due to support direct streaming to Twitch.tv, although that feature isn't in the current beta. The advantage of using ShadowPlay over something like Fraps is CPU and memory usage. In our testing we found it affected the frame rate far less than Fraps did, in many cases with a hit of just a few frames per second. The software is still in beta, though, so we experienced a few capturing hiccups and crashes, but hopefully those issues will be ironed out before its full release.

There's also a great games bundle attached to the 780 Ti, with copies of Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag, Batman: Arkham Origins and Splinter Cell: Black List coming with every card. That's a sweet deal considering they're such current games, and hey, if you've already got them there's always the joy of gifting or selling on eBay.


Our trusty Ivy Bridge PC backed the GTX 780 Ti, although this time we overclocked the CPU to 4.2Ghz for a little extra oomph. A 1080p monitor would have been a waste for such a card, so we went with Asus' PQ321Q 4K monitor to really test its pixel-pushing power. With the exception of Crysis 3, all games were run at maximum settings and where possible we used FXAA for a performance boost. Call Of Duty: Ghosts was run at a lower resolution of 2560x1600, due to a current lack of 4K support.

MotherboardAsus P8Z68-V Motherboard
ProcessorIntel Core i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz
RAM16GB 1600Mhz DDR3 Corsair Vengeance RAM
Hard DriveCorsair Force GT/Samsung Spinpoint F3 1 TB
Power SupplyCorsair HX850 PSU
DisplayAsus PQ321Q @ 3840x2160/Dell 3007WFP-HC @ 2560x1600

Battlefield 4 (2x MSAA @ 3840x2160)

Average FPSMinimum FPSMaximum FPS
GTX 780 Ti322444
GTX Titan292140
GTX 780261336

Crysis 3 (High Settings, FXAA @ 3840x2160)

Average FPSMinimum FPSMaximum FPS
GTX 780 Ti302444
GTX Titan272234
GTX 780252037

Call Of Duty: Ghosts (HBAO+, FXAA @ 2560x1600)

Average FPSMinimum FPSMaximum FPS
GTX 780 Ti7528107
GTX Titan7647104
GTX 780543783

Bioshock Infinite (Ultra @ 3840x2160)

Average FPSMinimum FPSMaximum FPS
GTX 780 Ti503467
GTX Titan403361
GTX 780302561

Tomb Raider (Ultra @ 3840x2160)

Average FPSMinimum FPSMaximum FPS
GTX 780 Ti302343
GTX Titan292139
GTX 780281637

Metro: Last Light (Ultra @ 3840x2160)

Average FPSMinimum FPSMaximum FPS
GTX 780 Ti332749
GTX Titan292537
GTX 780252040

A Pricey Performer

As expected with such killer specs, the GTX 780 Ti screams through the likes of Battlefield 4 and Call Of Duty: Ghosts, even at 4K, easily beating the GTX 780 and even the $1000 Titan. It's an impressive showing for a card based on an architecture that's now well over a year and a half old, and represents the peak of Kepler's rendering abilities. While we unfortunately didn't have an AMD R9 290X on hand to make a direct comparison, judging by the benchmarks out there, the 780 Ti is a comparable card and once again places Nvidia within striking distance of, if not back at the top of GPU performance.

Such performance comes at a price, though. At over $100 more than the R9 290X and nearly $300 more than the similarly performing R9 290, the 780 Ti is an expensive choice. It's also $100 more expensive than the GTX 780, a GPU that's hardly a slouch when it comes to high-resolution performance. Yes, the 780 Ti is far more power-efficient than AMD's latest, and yes, it's a very quiet card in operation too, and we experienced none of the power throttling issues that are currently plaguing the R9 290.

Whether that's worth the extra cash, though, is debatable. No doubt about it, the GTX 780 Ti is a brilliant GPU backed by some brilliant software, but you can do a lot with that $100 saving (or even $300 if you plump for the R9 290). AMD's aggressive pricing has taken the shine off the GTX 780 Ti, but if you're all in for team green and have the high-res setup to do it justice, it's the absolute best you can get from Nvidia, and one of the best GPUs (a lot) of money can buy.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Did you enjoy this article?

Sign in to Upvote


Mark Walton

Mark is a senior staff writer based out of the UK, the home of heavy metal and superior chocolate.
216 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
  • 216 results
  • 1
  • 2

Nice to see something PC instead of all this bloody PS4/Xbox one dullness.


unless your playing on a specialized 30 inch monitor or a giant 90 inch tv resolutions over 1080 is pointless....so ill stay at 1080 with my gtx 660 OC and with everything maxed i lock 60 frame for everything..including the last crap games that came out...id need a crysis 4 just to see if my pc is still fit cuz no game actualy comes close to chalanging it...so thx but...NO!!!!!! maybe next year..


It would be nice to PC game at this level, just this is just why console gaming is more beneficial to just for gaming in general, im happily set up for £350 for the next 5 or 6 years now with the PS4, no essential need to be spending so much unnecessary time and money on something to make it look that bit better than a console version, I used to love PC gaming in the 90's I just don't think It would do me a favor anymore.


$699? with that much couldn't I just buy a PS4, a year PSN subscription,and BF4 with premium included?


<< LINK REMOVED >> For the best price/performance you should be looking at the R9 280X (preferably the Asus TOP edition) It performs better than its GTX 770 competitor and is much cheaper. Also there'll be some never settle bundle stuff attached to it retroactively at some point (or so has AMD indicated)

Another option, if you feel like you can hold out, is to wait for the next generation a 1-1,5 years down the line. A 280x is essentially just a reskinned 7970 afterall and in the next generation we'll see AMD put their new architecture used in the 290x to use on more sensibly priced GPUs.

so yeah tl;dr: If you need an upgrade now go r9 280X (Asus edition preferably)

additionally, if you want to look at some easily digestible performance comparisons AnandTech has a great benchmark comparison tools so you can see how different cards stacks up against each other. I dont think they've added the 280x but its essentially a 7970 so you can use that for reference if you're looking for benchmarks.


<< LINK REMOVED >> I just got a 7950 for $189 before a $30 rebate. Overclocked it a bit runs a heavily modded Skyrim @ a consistent 60fps 1080p. If they're are any priced like that go for it. GTX 760 are priced well as well.


All I'm going to say is, if you buy a 780 Ti, Titan, or pretty much any recent high-end Nvidia card over the R9 290X you're an idiot and should hand all of your money to someone who will use it properly. There's being a fanboy and then there's being just plain dumb.


Do gamespot do AMD gpu reviews, why not? It seems a bit biased to only review one companies hardware and not it's competitors.

And Mark, the 780ti is $150 more expensive than AMD's 290x, not $100.


That price will drop. AMD is giving them a serious run for the money.


Maybe if you're only going to play current-gen games at 1080p 60Hz for the next 5 yearsbut then you're not who this card is targeted at. Some people game on multi-monitor setups or at 1440p+ and will want to get 120 fps if they have a 120Hz capable monitor (which DOES look noticeably smoother than 60 fps) and may buy this card to keep taking full advantage of their hardware for the next few years of game releases. If you think it's only about increasing frame rates at the same hardware and settings, then you completely miss the point.


S @Mark Butler £180 quid dearer than a ps4 and from the table above its only running bf4 at 44 FPS. I'll stick to consoles i think. there worth the money you pay compared to pcs.


<< LINK REMOVED >> you can build a PC that is at the same price range as the next-gen consoles and still out perform those consoles, of course you will need to research the parts if you're going to stay on budget. this card is made specifically for 4k, hi-res and multiple monitors.

I've currently played all the games listed a @1920x1080 using a 580GTX. The single card is still doing its job at full settings


@Jim Corleone

Maybe you didn't hear but ps3 sold 80million units on its own xbox360 isn't too far behind that so saying 65million steam users disagree isn't that impressive...


There is no point in testing these cards at 4K if they can't even touch 60fps in most of the games you test. Also it would have been useful to see an R9 290 in the mix for comparison.

What I have learnt: anyone who thinks they can game at 4K with a single GPU is dreaming.



They where tested on a 4k monitor


More than this or than that? Give us the total price, GS! 8-\


So for nearly the price of both next-gen consoles, I could buy a single video card. Did anyone notice we are about to go into the largest depression the Western world has ever seen? Time to wake up, nobody can afford this crap.


my 690gtx will do till 890gtx shows up...


A little message to pc gamers who think this card is too expensive or console gamers who think PC gaming is too expensive.

A PC (gaming or work), are investments. You don't have to upgrade every time a new model comes out specially if you can't afford it. Buying the proper model GPU should last you at least 4 years (or more). This is enough time to save up money on your next purchase in the future.I my self have skipped several Nvidia Series cards. When I started PC gaming, my first video card was a GeForce 6600 GT, then the 8800 GT, followed by a 275 until my current GTX 670 (which still performs perfectly). =)


I think I'll stick with my recently acquired 760. The price tag was at least in a manageable place with my low income. I think it has at least 3-4 years minimum left in it before I'll start considering getting a new upgrade. At least that's the plan anyways unless something big happens to change everything.


i didn't know about 780 TI i just bought 780 is there a big deference


im fine with my 2 660ti's in SLI, haven't seen a game yet they can't keep at 60 FPS in 1080p


how many frames per second is tekken tag 2 running on a pc?


<< LINK REMOVED >> Yeah, or how many frames does it get with GTA V? Actually, I think the framerates are 0 and 0 respectively, because they don't even come out for the PC. Two of the best games ever made and they aren't even on a PC. PC gaming is a joke.


The minimum FPS on COD: Ghosts is kind of weird, but I guess that'll be fixed with a driver update. Seems like a great card for anyone with 1440p, or 1600p who has $700 to drop. 4K obviously needs an SLI, and ton of money lol


Them framerates look pretty shit


<< LINK REMOVED >> They are running at 2X - 1080P resolution. So just double the FPS and that's what it would run like on next-gen consoles. lol!!


Damn. That's expensive.


Wich one is better GTX 780 or GTX 680 ?


<< LINK REMOVED >> 780, it's a higher number.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> He should get the GTX 8800. It's 8020 numbers higher.


<< LINK REMOVED >> lol, that's not exactly how it works, but yeah, it's better.


I Know Pc gaming is more powerful, but I think that I buy consoles because I can take them to whatever place I want and because of some franchises I grew up....maybe that's the main reason, I played some games on my PC but the experience was not the same, There is still something in my mind that tells me that computers are used to program and work in the office and consoles are for entertainment. Games will always look better in Pc....


<< LINK REMOVED >> you can take a laptop with you wherever you want too, just don't expect to play games with anywhere near the same settings as on a good desktop.



Your practical, non-aggressive take on things is not welcome on this site.


I'd really like to know more about mid-range GPU's for next gen.But what if 660 will end up being a mid range GPU for next gen games?Besides this is only the beginning and there's no telling how good will games look as the nextgen progresses.


And just wondering,would a 650ti boost be enough to handle nextgen games?


<< LINK REMOVED >> depends on the resolution.


<< LINK REMOVED >> Yes, but you won't be running them with all the bells and whistles.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> That's the thing. If they used just the bells and whistle that next-gen console are using, the FPS would easily be a lot faster.


I'l stick to my 660, I'm fine with 1080p with small monitor for desk is enough for me, This gpu is just best for High end cool monitors


<< LINK REMOVED >> This typpe of resolution is best for desktop screens. It needs to be at a closer distance to your eye in order for you to notice the really small details. More or less 25" is perfect.


Its 500$ :/ i would buy a console.


<< LINK REMOVED >> That's exactly why there are more console gamers then PC gamers.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Who plays in 3840x2160? To match the next gen, you need a simple $200 card.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Your computer can't output at 1080p, with graphics on medium? It's impossible to have equivalent of Xbox. There's a lot of proprietary architecture there.



I own the equivalent hardware to the X1 but my PC won't run games as good. Atm my rig can only run BF4 on medium smooth with 3 higher settings. Set me back £400 a year or so back.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Not even. Cards equivalent to next-gen consoles are around $120 - $160. PC gaming has come a long way considering that the card the Xbox 360 used was equivalent to a $500 PC card when it first came out. PC gaming by generation 9 (Xbox Two, PS5) will be far cheaper than consoles considering the trend. Hell, I'll bet that by 2015 it'll be cheaper to build a PC than it will be to buy a console.


Great article.

I've enjoyed the Nvidia cards I've owned in the past few years. I'm a budget gamer, however, and I don't go for the expensive cards; I tend to stick with in the $300 - $400 range. I know I would get more bang for my buck with AMD but I find it hard to willingly move from such dependability.


<< LINK REMOVED >> AMD is good, specially for processors, but I prefer Nvidia for graphics too.


<< LINK REMOVED >> Yea, I honestly can't say anything bad about AMD; they're solid cards and well priced.


680GTX still rips every game out there to sharp 1080p shreds. And there I was thinking that "next-gen" software would give me a valid reason to upgrade.


<< LINK REMOVED >> Even my 660 GTX. Who plays at 3840x2160? This is 3 times the resolution of Xbone.


After going Nvidia for such a long time, my last one being a 660 which is still awesome, but I doubt will be able to handle The Witcher 3 at its best, I think it`s finally time to jump ship and go AMD in 2014, the R9 290 price/benefit is just way too good.


<< LINK REMOVED >> I honestly think you'll be surprised. Just wait and see.


it is not wasted on a 1080p monitor if you are a competitive gamer 120hz or 144hz is what you should have and more fps no drops below 60 is what you are after

about the 290x "not only taking the performance crown from their rival, but also seriously undercutting it in terms of price."

this is debatable it really annoyed me how they over hyped it. at stock it beat the 780/titan on some amd optimised games but it runs really loud and really hot i wanted them to compete but any gamer with these sorts of cards is going to overclock a bit and then it losses across the board.

4k is unplayable still why bother with those benches


Console wars lolol

Eh the only thing people should do is take those consoles they pre-ordered and resell them for as much as they can get then spend it on master race ... PC .. get some awesome hardware !


I Wounder why Call of Duty Ghosts only is 2560x1600 not 4k (3840x2160 or 4096x2160)?


<< LINK REMOVED >> For the simple fact that it doesn`t support it, it`s written in the article.


<< LINK REMOVED >> What are you talking about? Of course. It's 4k. There is not reason to limit it. :P


I'm looking into building a gaming desktop pc. I'm not interested in a multi monitor setup, but I do want my games to run smooth on very high settings. The graphics card I am looking at is an Nvidia GeForce GTX 690 4GB GDDR5. Can anyone tell me if this will suit my needs? Also, the total seemed a bit pricy for me at around $3300(for the entire computer). I could really use some helpful advice. Thanks.


<< LINK REMOVED >> Buy an Alienware Aurora, if you're dishing out 3k.


<< LINK REMOVED >> i got a gtx 680 16gb ram and an intel core i7 and theres not a game i cant run at ultra everything and even with battlefield 4 still gettin 80-100 fps. just single monitor set up mind you.


<< LINK REMOVED >> same here - good ol gtx680/2600k setup


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> 770 doesn't make sense to me in price everywhere i look it is not competitive price to performance hxxp://pcpartpicker.com/user/numbers/saved/2Lvb then get g-sync when that comes for the monitor


<< LINK REMOVED >> I would look at possible getting a 670 or 770 in sli (two cards), that would save you a good 300-400 bucks. That would run games great at 1080p and you could max out pretty much everything without much trouble.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> I'll look into that, thank you.


<< LINK REMOVED >> well what resolution do you plan on playing at? because a 690 is gonna be overkill for most people right now unless youre trying to play at 4 k and the price reflects that. Also the 6 series is outdated now. I would be look to get a 7 series card from Nivida now especially if you looking to pay that much. After seeing this story the 780Ti seems to be Nvidias best single card right now + it beats out the 690 in most cases + its cheaper. Also if you really want to save more money go AMD quick frankly. Their new R9 cards are better than their 7 series equivalents but cheaper.


@Gen007 @push88 Really?! 690 is overkill? I'll need to look into something else. I'll be playing graphic heavy games in 1080p like BioShock Infinite, Battlefield 4, Metro: Last Light, etc and I want "Advanced PhysX". Lol I was really hoping to stay at around $2300.


<< LINK REMOVED >> You don't want a 690 anyways. A 690 is simply two 680 GPUs in SLI on the same PCB; if you're new to building PCs, you don't want to deal with the hassles of SLI (ie multiple GPUs). Go with something like the 780 or the 780ti if you have the money. Some may tell you to go AMD, but if you like PhysX, you'll need to stay with Nvidia (I personally do like PhysX as well--dem Arkham Origins snow footprints!!).


<< LINK REMOVED >> Yeah a 690 will pretty much run anything out now and the near future pretty well at 1080p so yeah it would be overkill imo or rather a waste of money. Yeah id look into a a 770 or 780 those are much cheaper and still plenty powerful. Also like skid mark mentioned Sli is always an option. You could SLi two 770's and get better performance than a 780 and it will still be cheaper than getting a 690.


Great card it seems but Nvidia is gonna have to come off their premium pricing if they aren't offering a premium product. I have to say AMD has them beat here R9 cards being faster and much cheaper. I must say AMD is clearly gunning for Nvidia's head they dont seem to be taking the threat seriously. I mean in December BF4 is supposed to get an update to support the mantle api on AMD cards and if it does What it claims to then it could end up changing everything and putting Nvidia is a really tuff spot. AMD controls all of the next gen cosnoles so Mantle could end up being a super ace card for AMD.


wow, last light is such demanding game


Another article for PC fanboys to scream, yell, and pillow fight among themselves. What a bore ! A GPU over 1000$ for an extra 5-7 fps. This is daylight robbery as is always the case with PC gaming. As a PC gamer myself, I don't read too much into these articles. I own a GTX 570 which maxes out pretty much every game currently available at 1080p. I can live with some compromises in visual quality from time to time. But I don't want to spend my hard earned money on such pricey hardware especially when I won't be noticing much difference between now and then. This is why console gaming is better. Good looking games with a small price tag. PC gaming will still be better BUT at the cost of such madness.


<< LINK REMOVED >> This article isn't for you. Move along now.


well the performance of this GPU is incresed of the Default 780 but lower then the 790 and equal to the TITAN but -200 cuda cores if you are wants a uber gaming pc then this is the GPU for you


Good. Now PC owners can fight among themselves for while on who's system is better. LOL.


Since when does GS review GPUs, it is not like a whole AMD series just recently released yet all we get is a review of the GTX 780 ti


i feel outdated with my GTX680 already =(


<< LINK REMOVED >> why would you feel outdated? it's pretty obvious that there is no game 680 doesn't run on ultra everything 1080p


@euphoric666 Yea I bought a $400 GTX 770 over the summer. Now looking at benchmarks on Tom's Hardware, it's dwarfed by all the other high end cards save for the R9 280X. It makes me feel like my system is weak, even though it's ridiculously capable for 1080p, but even so the price has dropped to $330 which would have been great savings.


<< LINK REMOVED >> Same here :( I bought it about 2 months after its release for 500$. I feel scammed. Anywho, i'm not wasting another 500$ on a new gpu for at least 2 years.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> I bought it 2 months ago, F***!


Hey guys, I'm still new to PC gaming, so excuse my stupidity, but when they write 3840 x 2160, is that the resolution they are playing it in? If it is, why would anyone need to play a game at that high of a resolution? Or is it just a way to test how well the card can perform?


<< LINK REMOVED >>Because 3840x2160 looks gorgeous, plain and simple. There's always been a steady increase in resolution over the years and the standard has always been increasing. Obviously 1920x1080 was not always the standard. Back in the mid 90s, and somewhat into the late 90s and early 00's, 800x600 was a good standard bread and butter resolution and most gamers felt most comfortable playing at that. In the mid 90s if they're rig was fairly powerful or in the late 90s and early 00s when it was much a lot more commonplace, 1024x768 was a great resolution. Back then, 1600x1200 was considered to be an insane resolution for gaming for only some of the most powerful rigs, and is essentially analogous to 3840x2160 right now. 3840x2160 is 4 times as many pixels as 1920x1080, just as 1600x1200 is 4 times as many pixels as 800x600, and many people were complaining about 1600x1200 then as well. 3840x2160 is the future, and it's going to look fantastic. The point of testing at that resolution is to see how future proof it is.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> 4K however is still quite low fps even on the best of Gpu's (including this). Nowadays refresh rates also differ in screens


@usagism It's a silly question to ask why play at such a high resolution... Why don't we all play in 480p, why don't we all watch movies on VHS, hell why don't we all go back to greyscale TV's? Because all those things suck... and a higher resolution makes a wonderful difference in quality. OF course you don't need it, but if you got a GPU this powerful you'd be wasting it on lowly ol' 1080p


<< LINK REMOVED >> Yes, that's the resolution they are playing in, and it'll be the next high definition standard resolution in the near future (UHD). Graphic cards powerful as 780Ti and R9 290X have to be tested in that resolution because they are kinda overkill for 1080p gaming.


this is a great article and write up. thx so much, mark. thoroughly enjoyed.


and I'll give this card about 6 months to a year to drastically drop down in price and finally swoop in and make my purchase.


@frylock1987 A great advise. This is exactly what happened to the current 700 series which dropped a significant price this past few weeks.


Looks like the one card to pick up for next year's Witcher 3, Star Citizen, etc., and by that time it should be quite cheaper.


why can't they unlock the 15th smx on the Titan?


<< LINK REMOVED >> I am considering buying that same laptop for work when we get our christmas bonus, it is a fantastic deal. I would get the 4700 cpu and get a ssd boot drive with the 1tb for storage, the Adata 120 gb is a great price. Get it you will not be unhappy with it. While the 780m is a beast mobile gpu, do not expect 780 desktop performance.


<< LINK REMOVED >> Don't listen to the other two guys who likely never leave their home. If you are someone who travels a lot, and say, goes to college and you'd like to play games while waiting for classes and such, a gaming laptop is perfect for you. If I were you and had the budget for a gaming PC right now, I'd look at the Lenovo Ideapad y410p. Right now it's at $769 but I guarantee that price will come down to at most $699.99 by Black Friday. And at that price, you are getting a computer that is nearly identical in specs with the most popular gaming notebook- Razer Blade. Even at $769, that is a great price when it should be in the 1100-1300 price range. << LINK REMOVED >> It should also be noted that the 410p IS upgradeable. You can add 8gb more memory and also add another mobile graphics card by replacing the ultrabay slot. Therefore, it assures your laptop will be able to keep with the times.

And on that matter, they are correct on getting more out of your money in terms of power if you decide to build a gaming PC. Just know that you do not have the liberty of being able to take it everywhere with you.



It sounds like your laptops died or you didn't buy something that was dedicated for gaming, my 4 year old laptop that i paid $600 at the time has an ATI 5650M in it and can run most modern games at least on low 30 fps.

Also certain laptop brands are upgradable such as MSI's GT series, Sager, ect.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> This this and this. Couldn't have put it better myself.


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> I know from experience that gaming laptops are a bad idea. Several years ago I bought a gaming laptop for over $1000, because I mainly needed a laptop. At first it was good, but I regretted it about a year later when it became severely outdated and I couldn't upgrade the graphics card or play any of the new games on even low settings without getting only about 5 fps (unplayable). If you really need something mobile then just get a netbook or tablet for school and simple games to play on the go and spend the majority of your money building yourself a good desktop. Otherwise, your money is going down the drain and you'll get stuck with an outdated, overheating, low-battery life piece of junk!


<< LINK REMOVED >> Yea it's getting annoying how often people say to pass on a laptop and instead get a desktop... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell they both meet different needs, and that a laptop will be more expensive for what you get. My advice though, if your set on getting a laptop because of its portability, is to go big or go home. Buy a high end gaming laptop if you're going to buy a gaming laptop at all, otherwise it'll become obsolete far too quickly for the cost, and there's usually not upgrade options for a laptop.



yeah, don't buy a gaming laptop, they are only made by certain manufacturers and they are very expensive. Also don't go with cyberpowerpc because its a % chance what you bought will be either broken or defective in delivery and customer service is based off of what you paid so if you went cheap, expect cheap service. << LINK REMOVED >> and << LINK REMOVED >> are the best sites for PC building, build it yourself because its not only cheaper now but also down the road and each part you buy has its own warranty that you can count on to provide replacements. TigerDirect has stores around the US so you can go in one and look at selections of what's available.


<< LINK REMOVED >> DON'T BUY A GAMING LAPTOP! You'll pay double the price for the same performance. And don't just buy from the first place you find, shop around A LOT. In my experience Cyberpower are way overpriced. Since you're a first time buyer, let me give some advice; set yourself a definite budget and then max it out by choosing the best parts you can find within that budget. I'm about to buy a gaming PC instead of a PS4/Xbone at Christmas, and I did about a month's worth of research and comparisons before choosing any parts. I set myself a budget of £600, and the final machine cost came to £599.96. Inside that budget I managed to get:

i5 3570 3.4GHZ
2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600MHZ RAM

XFX Radeon HD 7870 2GB

1TB hard drive

And on top of that I can get Windows 7 Pro for free from Microsoft's Dreamspark website since I'm a university student.

Seriously, do a LOT of research. Buying a gaming PC is a money minefield if you aren't prepared. :)


<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Its true. Better to build or buy a desktop gaming PC. I bought a gateway FX laptop back in 09 which ran me around 1500. It is still running a lot of games, but now I am in the process of building another gaming PC. (Gave my first one to my sister) If you really want to be mobile then yes, laptop, but be prepared to dish out the cash. Yes do your research and do a lot of shopping around, like OhNoesltsDobby said.



This will give you an idea on the GPU's performance: << LINK REMOVED >>

The i7 4700MQ is more then adequote for gaming and is a good deal cheaper then the i7 4800MQ, i have it in mine and it's fine.

I don't know much about Cyberpower but Sager's custom laptops are suppose to be good.

  • 216 results
  • 1
  • 2