• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 launches June 25

4GB version could be the perfect card to power all those PS4 ports that will be incoming over the next few years as well.

..other than that, it's releases like this that show what an utterly tedious business GPU releases have become over the last 12-18mths.

10% performance jumps turned out every 6mths...ZZZzzzz
 
Gregster said:
GeForce-GTX-760-Gaming-Performance.png


GeForce-GTX-760-vs-HD-7950.png


GeForce-GTX-760-Relative-Performance.png

http://videocardz.com/43099/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-performance-preview

Price dependant, this could be the ideal card for those who game @ 1080P. Stomping on a 7950BE and if it is the same price as a 7950, AMD's Price per performance card has some competition :)
Click to expand...

Lets wait for real reviews and not pin our hopes on what Nvidia say will be.

The GTX 760 is a lesser GPU than the GTX 670 which is at best about the same as the 7950, what Nvidia is saying here is that lesser GPU is 10 to 20% faster.
 
Clock for clock the GTX 670 is about 5% slower than a GTX680. The extra 192 shaders make very little difference.

According to the above specs, there is the same difference between GTX 760 and 670 as there is between 670 and 780, so at same speeds we should expect the 760 to be ~6% slower. However, the 770 is clocked 15% higher on the core, meaning it should outperform the 670 by more than 5%.

With GTX 670 and the 7950 being very close in performance, it is reasonable to assume the 760 will be slightly faster. Sure, the 7950 will overclock further, and may well be that bit faster, but out of the box, 760 wins.

The card has the spec to be very popular, and will surely perform monstrously within SLI. Let's hope NVidia's pricing is competitive.
 
I do have to agree with Humbug that it is best to wait for more sources rather than just what Nvidia say. That's not to say that those numbers are not correct but they are from Nvidia, showing what Nvidia want and probably at stock reference speeds, which as we know there are hardly any cards now days that come at the stock reference speeds.

We will have to wait and see, and it will all depend on price.
 
humbug said:
Lets wait for real reviews and not pin our hopes on what Nvidia say will be.

The GTX 760 is a lesser GPU than the GTX 670 which is at best about the same as the 7950, what Nvidia is saying here is that lesser GPU is 10 to 20% faster.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise you was pinning your hopes on this card Humbug? :D
 
Darujhistan said:
Still only 2GB of VRAM - so lame for the money.
Click to expand...
The other side of the coin is why pay for something most people won't use? For most at 1920x1200 or below 2GB will be fine. For others with larger screens or surround setups it may not be enough, but that's what 780's and Titans are for:). I have never experienced lack of VRAM issues with my 680 @ 1920x1200, and I have no desire for a larger screen.
 
I think that GTX 670 still will be faster when pushing higher resolutions and/or adding more Anti-Aliasing. Cutting down TMU's does cost.
 
555BUK said:
The other side of the coin is why pay for something most people won't use? For most at 1920x1200 or below 2GB will be fine. For others with larger screens or surround setups it may not be enough, but that's what 780's and Titans are for:). I have never experienced lack of VRAM issues with my 680 @ 1920x1200, and I have no desire for a larger screen.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have bothered responding. He was flame baiting in another thread about the same thing. I think Gregster grouped up about 8 posts saying it across just two threads :D.
 
555BUK said:
The other side of the coin is why pay for something most people won't use? For most at 1920x1200 or below 2GB will be fine. For others with larger screens or surround setups it may not be enough, but that's what 780's and Titans are for:). I have never experienced lack of VRAM issues with my 680 @ 1920x1200, and I have no desire for a larger screen.
Click to expand...

I think it's poor Vfm, when you get 3GB with a 7950. Simple as that.
 
Darujhistan said:
No I wasn't, I was stating an opinion that 2GB IMO is poor VFM. Which it is.


That's my opinion.
Click to expand...

More than 2GB on a single card is a mistake, not only do you have to pay for the extra vram, it also hinders performance by making overclocking more difficult.

Extra vram is only a serious option if you are going to use multi GPUs/Multi monitors.

NVidia did a neat trick with the GTX 770, they did not increase the vram or give the card a wider mem bus, no they gave the card faster vram (much more useful).

Those GTX 770s don't half fly.:D
 
Kaapstad said:
More than 2GB on a single card is a mistake, not only do you have to pay for the extra vram, it also hinders performance by making overclocking more difficult.

Extra vram is only a serious option if you are going to use multi GPUs/Multi monitors.

NVidia did a neat trick with the GTX 770, they did not increase the vram or give the card a wider mem bus, no they gave the card faster vram (much more useful).

Those GTX 770s don't half fly.:D
Click to expand...


In my opinion it's poor VFM.
 
Kaapstad said:
I did say single card, I did not mention xfire or multi monitors.

Not even a Titan on it's own has the muscle to use more than 2gbs, unless you count Crysys 3 @1600p maxed out doing 22fps.:D
Click to expand...

3Gb of ram does not making overclocking any harder on Radeon cards. Infact the Tahiti line of cards have the best memory overclocks ive ever seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom