• 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.

GTX 780 OC 6GB vs. R9 290X 4GB Overclocked at 4K

they higher settings than i would use at 4k anyway
avg 60fps is only just playable to me
must be some low dips there

maybe the 8gb cards make sense in trifire i dont see it tho :)
think they just wasting time until the new cards now!

3 and 4 card setups can work really well @4K. 4 cards on BF4 maxed @4K is smoother than a single card @1080p.
 
14060235239aDa7rbLPT_9_1.gif


Is it me, or there no consistency of their own results on the same "benchmark"?

Which one is right, because they use the same settings.......

Anyhow, I am impressed of the GTX780 6GB SLI perfomance. Few months back, same test GTX780Ti SLI couldn't scrape 54 fps. (53.4 to be precise)

I did think the 780's did well being a lower tier than 290x's and those were running mantle, would have been nice for a DX number for 290x's
 
I did think the 780's did well being a lower tier than 290x's and those were running mantle, would have been nice for a DX number for 290x's

Would have been nice for a Mantle number using max settings but that is not possible as the API eats all the VRAM.

I do wish review sites like (H) would publish the real facts rather than messing around only giving half the story.

Using DX11 there is a good chance the 290Xs could beat those Mantle numbers at those settings anyway.
 
I did think the 780's did well being a lower tier than 290x's and those were running mantle, would have been nice for a DX number for 290x's

Reading the review, H were comparing on price as the 780's were a lot more expensive than the 290X's and the extra vram on the 780's made no difference in this case, as the 290X's were able to outperform them at the settings used. Mostly max settings (in the 290X case) but with AA lowered at x2-x4. No one will notice AA between x8 and x2 at 4K anyway. Two cards just won't have the grunt between them to use more than 4gb and remain playable, you'd need three cards to do that.
 
Last edited:
It is a choice between no AA /AF and highest frames possible = 4GB or less GPU memory. Or high to max settings, = 6GB Plus GPU memory and 3 or 4 cards in Sil or Crossfire. Which all comes down to cost and how fat your wallet is .
 
No one will notice AA between x8 and x2 at 4K anyway. Two cards just won't have the grunt between them to use more than 4gb and remain playable, you'd need three cards to do that.

Not really true.

I agree with your sentiment that applying high levels of demanding AA at 4K res is definitely entering the diminishing returns ground but your statement above isn't always true.
 
I did think the 780's did well being a lower tier than 290x's and those were running mantle, would have been nice for a DX number for 290x's

My post was why on one graph the GTX780 SLI OC was 62.4 and on the other 63.5.

The settings where exactly the same.
----deleted my fault didn't saw second setting was SLI----
 
Last edited:
My post was why on one graph the GTX780 SLI OC was 62.4 and on the other 63.5.

The settings where exactly the same.

For me the whole test shows few interesting and baffling things.

a) GTX780 6GB at 1050Mhz (single card) can be only 20% slower than 2 290X CF. (half the cost for 20% more performance, huh).

b) While 2 GTX780 SLI with 20% more OVERCLOCK are only 15% faster than a single GTX780 6GB.

To be honest, did they confirm that SLI was working at all?? The performance showing on the SLI setup could it be possible be done by the single 780 they had there overclocked at 20% higher????

They use MP and play the level manually. So there will be a margin of error there. Your last paragraph is pure nonsense, of course SLI was working, or are you trying to claim a single 780 gives almost similar performance as 290X in CF?
 
To be honest an almost similar performance in 4K can be had with 290s in CF. Just be sure to have a high end PSU and live in a fridge. :)
 
My post was why on one graph the GTX780 SLI OC was 62.4 and on the other 63.5.

The settings where exactly the same.

For me the whole test shows few interesting and baffling things.

a) GTX780 6GB at 1050Mhz (single card) can be only 20% slower than 2 290X CF. (half the cost for 20% less performance, huh).

b) While 2 GTX780 SLI with 20% more OVERCLOCK are only 15% faster than a single GTX780 6GB.

To be honest, did they confirm that SLI was working at all?? The performance showing on the SLI setup could it be possible be done by the single 780 had they overclocked at 20% higher????

From what I can see there are no single GPU results in the review. [H] for some reason didn't specify the non OC Strixx cards as being in SLI on the graphs which is somewhat confusing.
 
Reading the review, H were comparing on price as the 780's were a lot more expensive than the 290X's and the extra vram on the 780's made no difference in this case, as the 290X's were able to outperform them at the settings used. Mostly max settings (in the 290X case) but with AA lowered at x2-x4. No one will notice AA between x8 and x2 at 4K anyway. Two cards just won't have the grunt between them to use more than 4gb and remain playable, you'd need three cards to do that.

3-4gb is barely enough for 4k. Saying it doesn't make any difference is hogwash.

I'm with Kaap here. There is no where near enough testing in the 4K comparisons and the fact they've overlooked not being able to use max settings is pretty poor show.

Also, ideal 4k is three cards minimum for an acceptable experience. Unless all you play is BF4 in which case, what does any of this matter
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom