GTX 780 Ti Specifications Leaked – Full Blown Gk110 Core with 2880 SP

MooMoo444 · 1 Nov 2013 at 12:18

Why is a 780 doing so poorly on that chart compared to R290?

Azrael1 · 1 Nov 2013 at 12:29

Awesome chart - Shows how good the r290 is and soon as it gets custom cooling maybe 10 % faster ? Will be able to match a 7990 almost

IT Troll · 1 Nov 2013 at 12:32

Boomstick777 said:
I'll just wait until 20nm GPU's. Pirate Islands and Maxwell are sure to blow all from this gen away, and probably available as soon as May / June next year.

With the new manufacturing process I suspect it will be another GK110 situation with poor yields and the first wave being rather underwhelming. Just look at how long it took them to get a full fat GK110 in significant numbers. Making it smaller is only going to make it harder.

Suarez7 · 1 Nov 2013 at 12:32

MooMoo444 said:
Why is a 780 doing so poorly on that chart compared to R290?

Game is better optimized for AMD so far, and could well continue that way with them working closely together, mantle etc.

rare · 1 Nov 2013 at 12:58

Its going to be interesting to see how mantle shakes things up.

Uncle Petey · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:08

Any idea what part of the game they've benched to get that chart?

Jono8 · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:08

That chart doesn't add up. 760 2fps faster than a 670 and a 670 only 2 fps faster than a 580. 780 only 1 fps faster than a 7970 ghz but then the 780 sli scaling is about 95% yet the xfire scaling is about 60%...

Suarez7 · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:10

Jono8 said:
That chart doesn't add up. 760 2fps faster than a 670 and a 670 only 2 fps faster than a 580. 780 only 1 fps faster than a 7970 ghz but then the 780 sli scaling is about 95% yet the xfire scaling is about 60%...

People like placing cherry picked benchmarks in threads to try and prove a point. I've seen other benchmarks with 780's and 290X neck and neck.

MooMoo444 · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:14

Jono8 said:
That chart doesn't add up. 760 2fps faster than a 670 and a 670 only 2 fps faster than a 580. 780 only 1 fps faster than a 7970 ghz but then the 780 sli scaling is about 95% yet the xfire scaling is about 60%...

yeah I was wondering about the 780 SLI

It didnt' seem to match 780 single card.

TheRealDeal · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:18

Jono8 said:
That chart doesn't add up. 760 2fps faster than a 670 and a 670 only 2 fps faster than a 580. 780 only 1 fps faster than a 7970 ghz but then the 780 sli scaling is about 95% yet the xfire scaling is about 60%...

The 760 is faster than the 670 out of the box. As for the gtx580 only just slower than the gtx670 they are different architectures so maybe this game suits the gtx580 slightly better at this point. All this chart shows is amd are much faster in the game atm and nvidia have work to do. The chart shows amd have work to do on there crossfire scaling.

Saurez it's not cherry picked as it's about the only review that is out there so far using the full release. When others are out i am sure they will be posted.

ratters · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:20

Nvidia where in bed with them on BF3 and not AMD are in BF4 it makes a big difference really.

AMD have often had to do it the hard way because of the "way its meant to be played"

Uncle Petey · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:21

Chart looks off to me.
Right now, my 7970 @1200mhz is doing better than the 290X on there in multiplayer.

MrMarvelous · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:22

With the next gen console platforms being powered by AMD I wouldn't be surprised if games run as good if not better on the 290 series cards as opposed to their NVidia counterparts.

TheRealDeal · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:23

Uncle Petey said:
Chart looks off to me.
Right now, my 7970 @1200mhz is doing better than the 290X on there in multiplayer.

You running multiplayer with full ultra and 4x msaa? If so that's mighty impressive.

Make · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:24

TheRealDeal said:
The 760 is faster than the 670 out of the box. As for the gtx580 only just slower than the gtx670 they are different architectures so maybe this game suits the gtx580 slightly better at this point. All this chart shows is amd are much faster in the game atm and nvidia have work to do. The chart shows amd have work to do on there crossfire scaling.

Saurez it's not cherry picked as it's about the only review that is out there so far using the full release. When others are out i am sure they will be posted.

This is from Guru3d.

Azrael1 · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:27

The first review was 4 x MSAA and that one is 2XMAA which uses less video memory.

TheRealDeal · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:27

Make said:
This is from Guru3d.

Less of a lead for amd but the crossfire scaling is brilliant. I suppose it all depends on where they benchmarked. The extra msaa in the techpot review could be making the gap wider.

Uncle Petey · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:29

TheRealDeal said:
You running multiplayer with full ultra and 4x msaa? If so that's mighty impressive.

Yeah, it's smooth as silk.
Lowest dip I've seen is 53fps and that was very brief. It's usually 60-70+.
Granted, I haven't played that extensively, but from the 5 or so populated maps I've played so far, it's all good.

There are probably a few maps/situations that might throw up a few surprises.

All ultra/4xMSAA, no FXAA, Motion blur off, FOV:85.

I'll do a fraps run later.

Make · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:33

Azrael1 said:
The first review was 4 x MSAA and that one is 2XMAA which uses less video memory.

Well, the Guru review also has up to 4k Reviews and none of the 3GB cards suddenly "drop out" there, it's about the same scores in comparison to each other anyway.

More than 3GB vram is simply not needed.

Edit: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,11.html

Here VRAM usage as well. Anyone not gaming on 4k will not need more than 2GB.

Azrael1 · 1 Nov 2013 at 13:42

Ummm I run at 1600p and its close to 3gb?????