$649 is still steep for a graphics card, but if you're playing games at higher than 1080p there's no better option than the GTX 780.
It's hard to talk about the new GTX 780 without mentioning the GTX Titan. After all, thanks to Titan being based on the same GK110 chip as the workstation-focused Tesla K20 and K20X, it remains the fastest single-GPU card money can buy. At $1000 though, it's out of reach for all but the most well-heeled of gamers. Enter the GTX 780, a GPU that not only shares the same beautiful metallic enclosure of Titan, but is also based on the same high-performance GK110 chip, albeit with a few tweaks. The best part, though, is the price: retailing at $649 (£549), the GTX 780 nets you almost the same performance as Titan, but for less cash.
Of course, some compromises have been made to bring the cost of the GTX 780 down. The amount of RAM has been halved to 3GB, while the CUDA cores drop from 2688 to 2304. On the plus side, there's a small increase in the base clock and boost speeds to 863 MHz and 900 MHz, and a new version of GPU boost.
|
2304 CUDA Cores 863 Base Clock (MHz) 900 Boost Clock (MHz) 165.7 Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec) |
6.0 Gbps Memory Clock 3072 MB Standard Memory Config GDDR5 Memory Interface 384-bit GDDR5 Memory Interface Width 288.4 Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) |
|
4.3OpenGL PCI Express 3.0 GPU Boost 2.0, 3D Vision, CUDA, DirectX 11, PhysX, TXAA, Adaptive VSync, FXAA, 3D Vision Surround, SLI-readySupported Technologies Microsoft DirectX 11.1 |
4 displaysMulti Monitor 4096x2160Maximum Digital Resolution 2048x1536Maximum VGA Resolution One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
|
|
|
|
10.5 inchesLength 4.376 inchesHeight Dual-slotWidth |
250 WGraphics Card Power (W) 600 WMinimum System Power Requirement (W) One 8-pin and one 6-pin Power Connector |
Hardware is only half the story with the GTX 780. GPU Boost--an automatic increase in the GPU’s clock frequency to improve performance--gets an update to version 2.0 and a new set of software tools to go with it. The key difference between the original GPU boost and its latest incarnation is the switch from boosting clock speeds by monitoring power consumption to boosting clock speeds based on temperature. By default, the temperature target is 80 degrees, but you can increase it using the bundled software to whatever you like for increased performance at the cost of heat. You can also now adjust the fan curve--at what speed it spins at a specific temperature--for better cooling at cost of more noise.
With the GTX 780, Nvidia is making its GeForce Experience (GFE) software part of its driver package for the first time. For the uninitiated, GFE is an application that automatically optimises the graphics settings of your games based upon your hardware. It's designed to take the pain out of PC gaming for newcomers and make for a more console-like experience. For the most part it works well. GFE automatically updates your drivers and scans your games library for supported games. Then it's simply a case of hitting the optimise button and loading up your game.
Most games are targeted to run at around 40 to 60 frames per second, and we found that to be the case with vast majority of games we tried. That said, GFE isn't infallible, and there were a couple of occasions where we could boost the graphics settings of a game further than GFE suggested and still maintain a decent frame rate. Also, there are many games that aren't currently supported by the system, but Nvidia promises to support more games in GFE in the future.
Also coming in the future is ShadowPlay, a gameplay capture system that's being built into GFE. The hook is that it leverages the H.264 encoder built into Kepler (600, 700 series) GPUs, making it far more efficient than software encoders like FRAPS. Nvidia estimates around a 3 percent performance hit when using it. Unfortunately, ShadowPlay isn't due for release until this summer, so we've been unable to test it, but it's a neat idea and one that should appeal to the growing number of players uploading clips to YouTube.
GFE is a useful system, but it's arguable that anyone spending $649 on a graphics card is more likely to want to tweak settings manually than rely on an automated piece of software to do so. For cheaper GPUs, GFE makes a lot more sense. That said, if you'd rather go in and tweak your own settings, then you can choose to ignore GFE altogether and simply install the drivers without it.
| Asus P8Z68-V Motherboard | |
| Intel Core i5 3570k @ 3.4Ghz | |
| 8GB 1600Mhz DDR3 Corsair Vengeance RAM | |
| Samsung Spinpoint F3 1 TB | |
| Corsair HX850 PSU |
If you're just playing games on a single 1080p monitor, then forking out $649 for a GTX 780 is overkill. Cards like the 660 Ti, 670, and perhaps future entries in the 700-series will happily max out games at 1080p, and cost you far less. So to really put the GTX 780 to the test, we hooked it up to a 30-inch monitor running at a 2560x1600 pixel resolution. Pushing those extra pixels is a challenge for any graphics card, but even with just a single GTX 780 we got some great results.
What's interesting is that, in some cases, the GTX 780 posted better frame rates than Titan. That's most likely down to the increased clock speeds of the GTX 780. It should be noted that such speeds are possible on Titan with a little overclocking, but it's an interesting turn of events nonetheless. For anyone that forked over $1000 dollars for a Titan for gaming, the GTX 780 is something of a kick in the teeth. Here you have a card that performs almost identically, for less money, just three months after Titan's release.
If, however, you've been considering a Titan but have yet to take the plunge, then the GTX 780 is something of a bargain, even more so than Titan was against the Tesla K20. It puts Nvidia's top-of-the-range chip within the reach of more gamers than ever before, and offers outstanding performance across the board. 1080p gamers need not apply, but if you've got the high-res monitor to back it up, Nvidia's GTX 780 is a brilliant graphics card that lets you crank every game to the extreme. AMD has got some serious catching up to do.
Writer, riff maker, purveyor of fine foods. Mark currently spends his days trying to overcome his small (large) obsession with high-top trainers and mobile games. He's known to respond well to Long Island Iced Tea, falafels, and karaoke, but not necessarily in that order.
Why has Nvidia done this though? Releasing a card that performs almost the same as, and sometimes better than, the Titan, for so much less, so close to the latter's release. Where is the logic? They must have a decent reason. I just can't find it.
@Bl1zz4rd123 Software updates will likely improve performance over time like they always do, or you could just use less 'extreme' anti alias and filtering settings, I sure as hell can barely tell the difference.
still cant run last light fluidly. something jut doesn't feel right about paying that much for a card and it cant smoke every game at any res. I would feel disappointed.
i just bought an asus monitor maxing at 144 hz at 1 ms with a 7850 which the games come out beautiful! i might upgrade to a 7950 or 7970 near the end of the year anything higher than those would be pointless for me
Lol, 649$ for a graphic card? What a rip-off! A Ps4 or Xbox one will still be cheaper with two games.
Actually if you bought this for your pc...it would still be more effective than your new xbox one or ps4 in ten years. The xbox and ps4 graphics cards can now be purchased for around 100 bucks or less because they are already more than a year old in technology. Any game you own for any console now, can be played with better graphics, better resolution with the top end video card that was seen at the time the Xbox or ps3 came out...ill even say medium end video card. However, its not just about the graphics, the greater computing power of a pc and graphics card mean greater games. The only thing holding back developers is the console industry. If they only made games for pc hardware, the games today would be exponentially better. Not just graphics, but things like draw distance, visibility, accuracy and better physics, more expansive worlds with more unique AI...etc.
@WonderfulTonite @rce1n1 @saosebastiao
Wrong again, the 7850 has as many tera flops...however, teraflops don't matter much as games are more reliant on ROP/s and texture units. Again , you have nothing but conjecture and speculation. The fact that the 780 has 4 or more terflops...using your logic means it will be a better value in ten years compared to the already outdated ps4...that is the discourse...no scope creep with me on the target conversation...go spam your trolling elsewhere.
@rce1n1 @WonderfulTonite @saosebastiao
Again you are wrong 1.84 teraflops mops the floor of a 7850 and when you factor in optimization the PS4 is the equivalent of a PC with a 7950.
@WonderfulTonite @rce1n1 @saosebastiao
Wrong...speculation and conjecture. You are hoping that to be true because of rumors and nothing more. We have not seen empirical performance results. Just like every other console Sony has put out, they lie about its performance. The fact is that the quantified trended history is that they make it look better, they talk it up and in the end...it does not even remotely come close to what they say or what it actually is. The notion of a "closed" console product is always the argument...it never works as developers have to develop for multiple platforms. Also, Sony indicates that they are using next gen AMD which would not be the 7800 series but the 8000 series albeit made for the console. I'll stick with the trended, quantified, qualitative analysis that indicates I am right...as usual.
As expensive as expected but I wonder if it is actually better than 600 series running SLi.
i still have 8800 ultra HD OC (i know i know Super Retro) But it run 95% of the Latest Games Smoothly at Max Settings
@thebommer2005 I had that card till it died on me but it had some trouble running mafia 2 was only getting like 45fps if I remember right.
Meh, 2 GTX 670's in SLI slightly more expensive (probably actually cheaper in Australia), fair bit more powerful.
@BodyBag22 i have two evga 670sc 4gb ........and they are sic especially after a little oc
still waiting for GTX 770....not really need a powerful card to run most games in high or max setting in nowadays.....my current GTX 570 still performance very well to run most latest in high setting...
@commander1122 Yeah the 770 or the eventual 760 Ti will be the real sweet spot. As always.
1 Like already own a pair of GTX690(more than 3 times the raw power of a GTX780) so I will pass,
2 Like @GameFan1983 Cut the show off man, GTX 690 is $1200, GTX 780 is $650. I will buy two GTX 780 at that price.
@iknowthepiecesf it`s cheaper to get the 690 it`s a dually soooo .........fap it.............
@iknowthepiecesf I can only find 3 listings and they're all at least $830+
$650 for this card is just false advertising.
@dude102 @BodyBag22 @iknowthepiecesf Well Newegg is US based, so 1) you're paying more since the AUD is trading at less than the US dollar and 2) you're going to pay a significant amount on postage/shipping (and the massive warranty headache if the card is damaged/faulty) so no thanks, I don't like burning money when I don't have to.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
1 Like Sad thing is, due to the quagmire left by the last console generation, no matter how powerful your PC is, it would be up to modders and gaming community to push the limits of a games graphic capability and not the actual developers. Crysis 1 vs 2 and 3 is a good example of this. Crysis 1 pushed the PC hardware back in 2007 and came out with a jewel of a game. On the other hand, though Crysis 2 and 3 has excellent graphics, I can't help but feel they could have done more if it was PC exclusive just like the first. Skyrim and all its graphic improvement mods would also serve as an example.
@aeterna789 stupidity of PC virign community has no limit, first crysis1 completely crippled entire middle range PC and marked the first game in video game history takes 2 years future high end hardware to max out to play at acceptable frame rate,, visual? other than some high point palm tree and banana tree, it's a subpar game by 2009 standard, and it was hated all the way from 2007-2009 till GTX480 finally able to max it, not to mention it only sold 88,000 copies in first 3 weeks.
crysis2 looked 3000 times better than crysis1 and it was made for hardware for its day, crysis3 not only rise the bar so high but it can't be compared by any games(not even next gen) for at least a good 2 years. it's but the truth(visually speaking)
Coming from a PC gamer with a pair of GTX690 SLI and I own all consoles
2 Like @GameFan1983 @aeterna789 was hated? funny.
played at very acceptable frame rate on my mid range PC with a mix of medium\very-high settings.
every consolite that came near my house until about 2011 was just dying to see Crysis and afterwards wouldn't shut up about it. and it still looks better than most modern games and is more fun than any shooter, out of the hundred or so, I've ever tried.
no other game had as much destructibility or real motion physics on the environment. no shooter was as fun to play\explore and still isn't. copies sold does not reflect the enjoyability or value of a game. all that shows is how well it was mass-marketed to the pop-culture. true gamers are not the idiots standing in line for the next Call of Duty.
I wish the mid-range/low-range cards like 770, 760 and even 750 would also be based on the "real" kepler, the GK110 and not to be some shitty rebrand of the 600 series. Those cards would be very tasty indeed being GK110-cards(?) ;)
@RubMyDucky If you play your games with less than 1080p resolution then I think that card gives you something like "high-quality" graphics for a year or two atleast. Not worth it atm I think. I own a Sapphire VaporX 7950 clocked above 7970 and I don't play games above 1080p so not gonna upgrade in a few years I think. If that GPU can't handle future games then I buy them on PS4 (LOLOLOLO, HATERS GONNA HATE :D).
@Dr_takapotku @RubMyDucky so your saying until you get a monitor higher than 1080 p its pointless to upgrade the video card at all??
@cesarexec22 @Dr_takapotku @RubMyDucky Ofc it brings better frame rates if you upgrade from 7850 to 780, but a 7850 will do just fine atm with resolutions not higher than 1080 so why pay 700? for that?
1 Like I find the frame rates reported here slightly dubious. Mark should have mentioned the driver versions used and whether he was running both cards at stock settings. Also, HardOCP reports that the TITAN is faster than the 780 in Metro LL by 8% and is also faster in Tombraider by 11% while the review here suggests that the TITAN is actually slower.
Now, I don't know which site's results are off but since HardOCP has a good history of accurate testing, I'll stick with their results.
@mountain_k
Yep Guru3d are showing 106 FPS for the 780 and 122FPS for the Titan in Tomb Raider 1080p maxed. I suspect the Intel Core i5 3570k @ 3.4Ghz used for Mark's benchmarks are bottlenecking both cards and levelling them out a little. Something is certainly wrong with these numbers. That 3570k should at least have a nice OC on it for testing any current high end cards.
I love GS for games but wouldn't trust them with PC hardware, it's not their "thing".
Having said that the 780 is pretty close to the Titan, wonder if things will change with driver updates.
@bionicearlobe PC info on Gamespot is like headline news in the Sun newspaper. They really don't seem to understand how to write pc hardware or pc game reviews. I get my dose of console info here and look elsewhere for the PC stuff.
@mountain_k I doubt this guy was overclocking, he did say the Titan was capable of same if not better speeds than 780 with overclocking, but going off this I say he didn't 'test' these long enough and under enough different settings and resolutions. Almost any card 650 and up can play games at max 1080p, some antialiasing options need to be kept off though for lower ends, but FXAA is not all that demanding in games 1080p.
You'd be surprised what a 650ti turbo can handle.
3 Like As we know the old PS3 and Xbox 360 is what has been keeping developers from pushing game graphics, physics and so on forward. But just like last gen with new consoles coming out I believe games coming out later this year and the next will demand a lot more from our graphics cards than what has happen in the last few years. I think it's safer to wait for the next architecture refresh coming later this year or in early 2014.
1 Like @joalopes Ima wait for an 800 series card to release before i build my next computer. hell...i may wait until after i buy my harleey. and that could be a really long time lol.
