-
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.
GeForce 750Ti – Runs Battlefield 4 Better Than PS4 & Titanfall Better Than Xbox One
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
If you have a 400W PSU, it doesn't mean it is using 400W of power. The 750Ti is such a low power drawing card, over time, it will save money. Sure the 270X is faster and so is the 660 but again, when you factor in the price and power uasage, the 750Ti is a stonking card.
The cheapest 270X (£144) is a Sapphire boost OC and peak power draw in gaming is 172W
The cheapest 750Ti (£114) is a MSI OC and the peak power draw in gaming is 74W
This is my point. For such a low powered card, it is ideal for a living room PC/Bedroom or for those that want to get into gaming on a PC and spend as little as possible.
The cheapest 270X (£144) is a Sapphire boost OC and peak power draw in gaming is 172W
The cheapest 750Ti (£114) is a MSI OC and the peak power draw in gaming is 74W
This is my point. For such a low powered card, it is ideal for a living room PC/Bedroom or for those that want to get into gaming on a PC and spend as little as possible.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,641
- Location
- Planet Earth
Have you even bothered to read a thing?? My rig consumes 150W to 180W on average when gaming at the wall with a maximum of 200W.
People will IB and Haswell CPUs,or Core i3s will consume even less power.
Yet on purpose ignore the fact the GTX750TI is SLOWER than many of the competing cards.
Moreover,why are you not getting a pair of GTX660 cards with a Xeon E3 then??
You have multiple Geforce Titans and a massively overclocked Core i7 yourself.
Your own choices contradict what you are saying,because you know the power saving is nothing compared to hardware upgrade costs.
So over a 4 year period anyone will be spending more money getting a GTX750TI,so whats the point??
Lets have a look at Hexus power figures again.
Look at ABSOLUTE figures again.
All the cards are consuming UNDER 180W at the wall with a Core i7 4770K. This is what you don't seem to wat to get at all.
You have probably been using MULTIPLE card rigs for so long with uber CPUs,that you have forgotten the power requirements for most system are much lower than even a few years ago.
The GTX660 and R9 270 consume around the same amount of power.
So that is only a 37W saving for cards which perform better. Not choosing the proper monitor would properly cost you that sort of power consumption.
You do realise that at 30 hrs a week for 52 weeks a year at 16P per KWH per year thats £9??
Nobody who has some sort of normal life or a job will be playing every week for a year anyway.
Take away a month for holidays and that is nearly £8.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,641
- Location
- Planet Earth
What agressiveness?? You don't read anything what I am trying to tell you conveniently. You made a statement and I posted information to say why I didn't agree.
The GTX750TI IMHO is not viable considering the miniscule cost savings in power consumption,when far better performing alternatives exist from BOTH Nvidia and AMD,especially considering how bandwith and texture constrained the GM108 is. Your own purchasing of computer hardware alone indicates you don't really agree with the whole power consumption thing. A few watts difference is not going to make a game run faster.
Upfront hardware costs are far more important.
I buy midrange hardware - I should know.
If it were 150W difference for the same performance I would agree with you.
However,the cards consuming more power are faster.
Look at the two pictures. The one on the right is the GM108 and the one on the left is the GK104.
Each SMX in both is made of a cluster of 4 shader groups. However,when compared to the GK104 and GK106,the GM108 has half the texture units of the GK104 and GK106. Plus it is a step down in memory bandwith over the GK106 based cards.
Last edited:
The gaming performance difference per Watt between the R9 270 and GTX 750TI is not actually all that.
The 750TI uses nearly half the power, yes. but. the 270X is nearly twice as fast in places.
As i said. its like comparing the 270X to the 290.
The 270, which is exactly the same GPU as the 270X, and completely dominates the 750TI.
msi geforce gtx 750ti gaming £122
msi radeon r9 270 gaming edition £135
£13 more, and you would have to be living in fantasy land to compare them, the 750ti is a lot slower. and the power for performance is not that different, its only because the 260/x is basically a gimped 270 that the power difference looks so good in comparison. compare it to the 270 and suddenly it doesn't.
as for mining. cats chart sows the 270x actually has better performance per watt.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,641
- Location
- Planet Earth
Regarding the R7 260X,things are whacked with that SKU. It basically has the same GPU as the HD7790 with only 100MHZ higher core and memory clockspeeds,and the Trueaudio SOC enabled.
But rated TDP and power consumption rose a silly amount.
Personally I think the Trueaudio SOCs have bumped up power consumption.
I always pushed people towards other AMD and Nvidia alternatives,unless the card was cheap.
I spec loads of £500ish to £550ish budget rigs for people and recently have easily fitted in GTX660 or R9 270 cards into them on many instances.
A Core i3 or FX6300 with a GTX660 and R9 270 is a solid budget gaming rig.
Don't get me wrong the GTX750TI has its place too,but its not the slam dunk over so many other cards,its being touted as.
When the relative pricing changes, things might look different,and I might change my viewpoint but people forget many of the reviews which are US based,have relatively more expensive AMD cards. However,this is the UK,where prices are different.
But rated TDP and power consumption rose a silly amount.
Personally I think the Trueaudio SOCs have bumped up power consumption.
I always pushed people towards other AMD and Nvidia alternatives,unless the card was cheap.
I spec loads of £500ish to £550ish budget rigs for people and recently have easily fitted in GTX660 or R9 270 cards into them on many instances.
A Core i3 or FX6300 with a GTX660 and R9 270 is a solid budget gaming rig.
Don't get me wrong the GTX750TI has its place too,but its not the slam dunk over so many other cards,its being touted as.
When the relative pricing changes, things might look different,and I might change my viewpoint but people forget many of the reviews which are US based,have relatively more expensive AMD cards. However,this is the UK,where prices are different.
Last edited:
The 750TI is good on power but AMD could easily achieve the same by doing exactly what Nvidia did to get this, strip out half the texture units
I hope they never do because its just diluting what a GPU can do and is, yet they may have no choice, Nvidia will ram the power issue down people throats and no one is really going to pull them up on what they actually did here.
So what we end up with is the erosion of what a GPU is.
"Oh look everyone, it only uses 60 Watts of power.. Nvidia FTW!"
Its only 60 Watts worth of GPU.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,382
- Location
- UK.
It's not an 'erosion of what a GPU is' as you put it. It's a massively improved design, compute performance is back, gaming performance per watt is higher than ever before..
They didn't just strip out the texture units..
It's a re-design..
L2 cache has been increased massively, this means bandwidth does not need to be so high, i.e reduction of bus with very little performance hit but big power use drop.. the larger L2 cache is an effective way of ensuring multiple SMMs can update a shared data pool quickly..
The monolithic core logic has been broken down into a number of independent components and having each of those control a small number of CUDA cores. So whereas Kepler keeps all the cores turned on during idle, Maxwell can independently shut down more cores during idle, resulting in massive power reduction..
This gives more precise control improves performance per core by 135 percent, and it also doubles the GPU’s performance per watt. Each SMM block of 128 cores is able to hit roughly 90% the performance of a 192-core SMX, so the benefit of these smaller simpler cores is that Nvidia can add far more of them into the same space. So they can improve the total number of cores on each GPU.
Think about it, if 640 Maxwell cores can cope with the latest games at decent setting in 1080P, what will 3000+ cores be able to achieve..
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 2,468
- Location
- Birmingham
Wow, seems like many are so against this new Nvidia GPU to the point of nearly having a cardiac arrest.
Then surely this is the case with all GPU's except the 780Ti 6GB and 290X? Effectively, anything else is a diluted GPU (as you put it).
You are only looking at this from a performance perspective (which isn't a bad thing) but for the performance per watt perspective, I see this as a very good GPU. I can see the appeal of both this and the 270/X in truth.
Greg, what you bought for your HTPC is a Discrete LapTop GPU Masquerading as a Desktop GPU.
In the same way a 8970m is an R9 270X with half its guts striped out to bring the power down.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,641
- Location
- Planet Earth
No it isn't. You do realise the GTX750TI is still a slower card,meaning it will have to be replaced quicker?? So over a few years you will be spending more in graphics card upfront.
KFA2 GTX660:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-036-KF&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=2379
MSI R9 270:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-245-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1982
Both around £130. R9 270 cards have been even lower for short periods.
The R9 270 and GTX660 against a GTX750TI which has been pushed to its limits?? Really now - so what happens when you overclock those?
Moreover,have you even run a midrange card??
My GTX660,H67 mini-ITX motherboard and a 80W TDP Xeon E3 1220(Core i5 2400) with an SSD and 2 HDDs consumes at most 200W during the combined test of 3DMark at the wall using an XFX PRO 450W PSU,which is Bronze rated.
My whole rig can run off a decent 300W PSU.
So if you had a Gold or Platinum rated PSU and an IB or Haswell based CPU,it would mean even yes.
That is peak power consumption. Usually it is around 150W to 180W at the wall.
Power consumption and PSU E-PEEN is only there to make people spend silly amounts on PSU you don't need.
PSU companies have made people gullible.
Anyone who is specced a rig on here will have at least a decent 300W+ PSU.
Moreover,I have run nothing but SFF mini-ITX and Shuttle SFF main rigs since late 2005.
You know the kind of rigs,where a 250W to 500W PSU are the most common??
I ran an unlocked 6800LE,ie,basically a 6800GT, off a 250W Shuttle TFX PSU with an overclocked XP 2800.
I ran a massively overclocked E4300,loads of RAM,multiple drives and an overclocked 8800GTS 512MB off a 400W Shuttle SFF PSUs on a blasted 975X chipset which drank power.
I ran a massively overclocked Q6600,loads of RAM,multiple drives and an overclocked HD5850 1GB at 950MHZ off a 450W Shuttle SFF PSUs on a blasted 975X chipset which drank power.
Plenty of people are running decent cards off 350W to 450W Silverstone PSUs.
The top end Valve SteamBox uses a Core i7 4770 and a Geforce Titan off a Silverstone 450W SFF PSU.
Those SFF PSUs are compact group regulated designs - they are decent for the size but not as good as full sized PSUs.
Thats just a few examples of what I have run in tiny boxes with limited cooling.
Wow,seems some people are so against faster cards like the GTX660,R9 270 and R9 270X to the point of cardiac arrest too,especially when such cards consume under 200W at the wall in a full system and are faster. Maybe,next time read the thread and see what people are answering to.
I have a GTX660 and my other SFF system is still using a 9300 IGP under Linux,so really don't start this nonsense against Nvidia rubbish. I must be so against Nvidia,that I have no AMD cards in any system I use ATM. But if you don't hype every Nvidia SKU ever made,you must want Nvidia to DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 2,468
- Location
- Birmingham
Why so angry? I've read the thread and it's just the same old stuff I see day in, day out really - let those who want to buy the 750Ti buy it, they will have their reasons and I'm not about to start a crusade to stop people buying certain GPUs. Each to their own and all that...
I didn't buy anything and doubt I will but if I was to buy a living room PC, I would be very interested in this GPU, as it is clearly better than what is in the PS4.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
Exactly!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,641
- Location
- Planet Earth
Because I have build or help spec loads of budget rigs where cards like the GTX660 and R9 270 go into. FFS,one of my mates is running a 3 year old Phenom II X6 1045T rig with a cheap HD7850 2GB he picked up off a CX400W PSU(the Silverpower version).
He runs bioinformatics stuff for days at a time on his system which pegs the CPU at 100% continuously,and some of the stuff he has run is GPU assisted to.
The system has not missed a beat for years.
Not one of these rigs have needed anything other than a 400W to 450W at most and some of the SFF rigs have managed with smaller PSUs. Plus when it comes to SFF builds I have done many of them myself and know plenty of people who have built them with smaller PSUs and reasonable gaming cards.
The Core i7 4770 and Geforce Titan SteamBox runs off a 450W Silverstone SFF PSU - not even a full sized one.
The power consumption reductions touted here are for a slower card,and in the end the power consumption requirements of competing cards are hyped up to stupid levels. They on purpose repeatedly ignoring the absolute power consumption figures and I even calculated the electricity costs too.
Its also coming from enthusiasts who don't give a flying rats arse about power consumption with Core i7s and uber high end cards. Not one would ditch their graphics cards for a slower one,since they know slower hardware needs upgrading quicker.
Yes,the GTX750TI is a nice card,but its not like the older and faster cards need huge PSUs to run off. Only people who have never built or specced many budget builds would think so.
Plus,the hyping is good for Nvidia. The GTX660 is faster but uses more memory chips and a larger GPU,so they make more money from the GTX750TI despite it being a slower card and it really makes me think at times.
The only person who looses is the gamer,as they will need to drop settings and/or replace the card quicker. That is why it ****es me off. They will waste other people's money when there are faster longer lasting alternatives for not much more.
But they don't care,because new always equals better.
Edit!!
Even Nvidia consider a GTX660 a faster card,despite the fact the GTX750TI makes them more money.
Here is a great one for £130:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-036-KF&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=2379
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,220
It's not better than what's in the ps4. The gpu in the ps4 is in between a 7850 and 7870. What you are seeing in bf4 for ps4 was an after thought ported to the console. Early games on new release consoles are usually not great.