Please ignore
Last edited:
-
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 GTX 780, 770 coming in May
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Please ignore
Last edited:
Does the GTX 780 have any memory on the back of the PCB.
Edit just seen the link, no memory on the back of the PCB.
Edit just seen the link, no memory on the back of the PCB.
Last edited:
It makes the GTX 780 a whole lot more interesting knowing you are good to go from day one on water.
I wonder what the chances are of OCUK selling them with waterblocks from day one are.
I have used 3.5gbs @1600p in Crysis 3
Having said that it needs a lot of GPU muscle to get acceptable FPS at those settings.
It's a good question that I don't have the answer to.
All I can tell you is the same setup will use about 1.8gbs on BF3 as a comparison.
1600p = 2 x 1080p for the number of pixels and workload
How can 1440p be equal to 3 x 1080p
I regularly bench @1080p and 1600p so I have a pretty good idea how the numbers stack up.
Providing you can take the CPU/system bottlenecking out of the equation you get pretty good scaling when changing resolutions. This becomes more noticeable as the resolution increases and the CPU/system influences decrease.
You have to take the CPU/system bottleneck out of the equation by going to higher resolutions then it becomes very proportional.
If you compare the results between 2560 x 1600 and 5760 x 1080 there is a very close link in the results, @5760 x 1080 they score almost exactly 1/3 less than they do @1600p. This is because 1600p has almost exactly 1/3 less pixels.
QED
Took it upon myself to count the result Greg provided, i'm surprised with the 1600 > 5760 demands. I'll happily eat my hat. 51% more pixels and an average of 47% more demand, 1080 > 1600 though, not surprised it's basically how i said (35% more for 1440) 97% more pixels but only 44% more load.
The 7970 results were skewed because of their testing anomalies, so only shows 35% more demand for surround.
The reason the results for the lower resolutions are skewed is the CPU comes into it more with bigger bottlenecks the lower the resolution gets.
Boost 2.0 feels like a sales gimmick to me, Titans seem to work the same as any other 6 series card. Don't let them get too hot and they will boost higher. I may be wrong but it does seem to work the same as any of the rest of the 6 series, the knack is to keep them cool.
Edit Also if the extra voltage is available when the card is within a set of temps, it is actually a fancy way of throttling the card when it gets too hot, rather than a performance boost.
Last edited:
I have heard of PSUs running at above their rated output, I was wondering if this is designed in to allow for ageing later, to help the PSU maintain at least it's rated output.
Don't count on it
If the GTX 770 is a faster version of the GTX 680, this stacks up as limited oc potential
The GTX 780 is a cut down Titan with one SMX unit less on the same PCB, it is already clocked higher than the Titan, so again limited oc headroom.
I have just had a thought will there be a new driver update when these cards launch.
Have you got any idea how much GPU muscle you have to use in say Crysis 3 to use more than 3gbs of vram and get playable fps.