NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 SLI benchmarked at 4K

PhysicsMan94 · 19 Jan 2014 at 10:49

andybird123 said:
I've been running 7680x1440 on 3 Titans on mostly max or near max settings (Crysis 3 with SMAA being the one exception)... that is 12mp, a 4k screen is "only" 8mp and less chance of needing AA, a 3 way GPU setup should be quite capable even on the current gen, the 20nm cards should knock it out of the park on 3 way and possibly be ok at 2 cards

That's what I'm saying though, you need a serious set-up of at least 2-Titans to be able to pull decent frame rates at ultra settings at this kind of resolution; which is not going to be a cheap set-up. Whereas we are already seeing 4K monitors at less than £1000 and within around 6 months time they will probably be quite a bit cheaper again.

pgi947 · 19 Jan 2014 at 11:12

Aren't all the sub £1k units also only 30hz? So not really aimed at gamers.

I'm going to have a fiddle with downsampling today and see if I can setup a 4k 30hz profile, get some benches done

andybird123 · 19 Jan 2014 at 11:16

thing is, the sub-1k 4k monitors are still not particularly appropriate for gaming, so it would be a total waste to buy graphics cards to drive them
if you skimp on either the monitor, or the GPU's, you will end up with a substandard gaming experience

I think it will be another 2 years before 4k starts to drift down to the "high end" from the current "early adopter" realms
looking at the prices of the 28" TN panels I would be guessing that Asus' 39inch VA one is going to be close to $2k, which is much better than the £3k+ of the 32inch one, but still, not what most people are going to be tempted to spend money on

PhysicsMan94 · 19 Jan 2014 at 11:36

Oh, ok, I didn't realise the sub £1k displays were 30Hz, I guess that explains then.

Silent_Scone · 19 Jan 2014 at 11:39

As someone has said already, a lot of people buying into it at the moment are getting a rough deal. Normally the case when pioneering but I'm not considering one till the next round of GPUs are here.

TheRealDeal · 19 Jan 2014 at 12:13

pgi947 said:
Ok so Dirt Showdown...780's using ultra preset and 290x's using Ultra no preset, I take it this is down to AA? Preset 4x and no preset 8x? Even so, 290x CF = 101fps avg, SLI 780's = 124fps, if the difference is in the AA (I'm genuinely not sure, AMD not have some fancy lighting system in this too?) surely it will still be trading blows, I wouldn't expect the 780's to drop out over 25fps by notching AA up one more level in this game specifically.

Bioshock Infinite: Both using ultra/DDOF, 57 vs 59, pretty even.

Sleeping dogs, yep it gets spanked.

Metro LL: both crash and burn at 22fps.

Tomb Raider:51 v 56, so yes 10%, but don't you think 10% sounds a whole lot more then 5fps? I'd call that trading blows.

Hitman: Yep 290x does spank them, 780's are still punching above 60fps though which is admirable.

So from 6 tests, I'd say the 780's are trading blows in 4 of them, the other two (SD & Hitman) seems to make good use of the 290X's large 512bit bus, some resolution scaling results on anandtech for hitman show a 780 and 290x roughly the same at 1080, with the gap gradually getting bigger through the resolutions of 1440 and 4K.

You also have to factor in the 290x tri-X is factory clocked on both core (by 40mhz) and memory (by 200mhz) and the 780's are bone stock reference. A quick look shows OC 780's are generally 8-12% quicker then a standard reference model out of the box*. Flip that around to 780 OC SLI vs stock reference 290x CF and you may have some interesting results on your hands

*Results based on a phantom GLH review w3bbo did.

Also this isn't a rant, I'm just pointing out that despite being written off by many for 4K, a pair of 780's perform pretty well and do in a fair few games it seems, trade blows with a pair of 290x's.

I agree and for the main your post agrees with mine just more detailed and better written. I agree that an oc gtx780 would change the landscape of that review but tbh the 40mhz on the290 is not really making much of a difference. Max oc v max oc I would expext the same results. Anyhow I looked at the results and decided it was a little unfair to say they were trading blows when in 3 of the 6 games the290x was a clear winner and the gtx780 won none.

LtMatt · 19 Jan 2014 at 12:24

HardOCP did 290X Crossfire vs 780 SLI at 4K, Apples to apples so matched settings. This was back in November. HardOCP ensure their 290's always use Uber fan profile.

Source
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...0x_crossfire_video_card_review/7#.UtvC_RBFAQ8

They also did 290X vs 780TI at 4K, single card. Were trading blows so at 4k it seems pretty even.

Apples to Apples.

Source
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...ti_vs_radeon_r9_290x_4k_gaming/7#.UtvDkhBFAQ8

Diagro · 19 Jan 2014 at 12:38

AMD Fanboi mode -

just shows... AMD pwns

DarrenM343 · 19 Jan 2014 at 12:47

Lets face it, even at this 4k res the 512 bus and 4GB of memory hardly makes a difference and the games are hardly playable as more oomph is needed by both manufacturers. Hopefully next generation but I think we have a bit of a wait until the graphics hardware will make the latest games play well at 4k. ANd who is going to upgrade to 4k soon anyway?

LtMatt · 19 Jan 2014 at 12:48

DarrenM343 said:
Lets face it, even at this 4k res the 512 bus and 4GB of memory hardly makes a difference and the games are hardly playable as more oomph is needed by both manufacturers. Hopefully next generation but I think we have a bit of a wait until the graphics hardware will make the latest games play well at 4k. ANd who is going to upgrade to 4k soon anyway?

Agreed. Needs more grunt for 4k.

TheRealDeal · 19 Jan 2014 at 12:59

DarrenM343 said:
Lets face it, even at this 4k res the 512 bus and 4GB of memory hardly makes a difference and the games are hardly playable as more oomph is needed by both manufacturers. Hopefully next generation but I think we have a bit of a wait until the graphics hardware will make the latest games play well at 4k. ANd who is going to upgrade to 4k soon anyway?

Or they could just lower settings a bit and be realistic. Max settings (ultra) is sometimes indistinguishable to the settings below (high) when playing but with a huge hit to fps.

LtMatt · 19 Jan 2014 at 13:07

TheRealDeal said:
Or they could just lower settings a bit and be realistic. Max settings (ultra) is sometimes indistinguishable to the settings below (high) when playing but with a huge hit to fps.

Also agreed. Just because you run 4k does not mean you have to run the highest settins with 8X MSAA.

PhysicsMan94 · 19 Jan 2014 at 13:11

LtMatt said:
Also agreed. Just because you run 4k does not mean you have to run the highest settins with 8X MSAA.

But if you're the kind of person who is going 4K already, then you probably demand the highest settings on every game including AA

LtMatt · 19 Jan 2014 at 13:14

PhysicsMan94 said:
But if you're the kind of person who is going 4K already, then you probably demand the highest settings on every game including AA

Not once prices come down a bit. I'm sure there was someone somewhere on a forum years ago saying the same thing about 1600P/1440P.

PhysicsMan94 · 19 Jan 2014 at 13:17

True, but I'm talking about the early adopters of 4K who care little for the price of the monitors right now.

LtMatt · 19 Jan 2014 at 13:18

PhysicsMan94 said:
True, but I'm talking about the early adopters of 4K who care little for the price of the monitors right now.

Agreed im sure the early adopters will have the money to ensure that they can run the best settings. Once its for the masses though that viewpoint will change and compromises will easily be made. I'd make them. I'd swap 1440P ultra settings for 4k High settings for example.

PhysicsMan94 · 19 Jan 2014 at 13:21

LtMatt said:
Agreed im sure the early adopters will have the money to ensure that they can run the best settings. Once its for the masses though that viewpoint will change and compromises will easily be made. I'd make them. I'd swap 1440P ultra settings for 4k High settings for example.

Agreed, hopefully it won't be too long before the cost of going 4K is reasonable; but we still need extra grunt to even run high settings at 4K I'd expect.

LtMatt · 19 Jan 2014 at 13:22

PhysicsMan94 said:
Agreed, hopefully it won't be too long before the cost of going 4K is reasonable; but we still need extra grunt to even run high settings at 4K I'd expect.

Most likely.

Kaapstad · 19 Jan 2014 at 16:43

LtMatt said:
HardOCP did 290X Crossfire vs 780 SLI at 4K, Apples to apples so matched settings. This was back in November. HardOCP ensure their 290's always use Uber fan profile.

Source
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...0x_crossfire_video_card_review/7#.UtvC_RBFAQ8

They also did 290X vs 780TI at 4K, single card. Were trading blows so at 4k it seems pretty even.

Apples to Apples.

Source
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...ti_vs_radeon_r9_290x_4k_gaming/7#.UtvDkhBFAQ8

I hate to spoil the 290X, Crysis 3 party but I think 2 x 290Xs on Crysis 3 scale very well but 4 cards are totally useless. 4 Titans on max settings are about 60% faster than 4 290Xs on Crysis 3.

TheRealDeal · 19 Jan 2014 at 16:48

Kaapstad said:
I hate to spoil the 290X, Crysis 3 party but I think 2 x 290Xs on Crysis 3 scale very well but 4 cards are totally useless. 4 Titans on max settings are about 60% faster than 4 290Xs on Crysis 3.

Kaap you have to admit the Nvidia cards took a hammering there.It's not even close. I know you like to tout titans with 6gb being the only 4k cards but most evidence so far goes against that. 4 way scaling being broke ain't much of a surprise in some games but surprised it is in Crysis 3 being a aaa title.