The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti Review
by Ryan Smith on November 7, 2013 9:01 AM ESTCompany of Heroes 2
Our second benchmark in our benchmark suite is Relic Games’ Company of Heroes 2, the developer’s World War II Eastern Front themed RTS. For Company of Heroes 2 Relic was kind enough to put together a very strenuous built-in benchmark that was captured from one of the most demanding, snow-bound maps in the game, giving us a great look at CoH2’s performance at its worst. Consequently if a card can do well here then it should have no trouble throughout the rest of the game.
Since Company of Heroes 2 is not an AFR friendly game, getting the best performance out of the game requires having the fastest GPU. While the GTX 780 Ti has a clear lead over the 290X across the average of our games, in this specific case it’s going to come up short, as AMD’s performance with this game is simply too high to be overcome without a significant performance advantage. Conversely this means that GTX 780 Ti and 290X are still close enough that NVIDIA won’t be able to sweep every game; in games where AMD still does exceptionally well, they’ll be able to close the gap and surpass the GTX 780 Ti.
Meanwhile, looking at a straight-up NVIDIA comparison, the GTX 780 Ti holds a slightly smaller than normal lead over its counterparts. At 5% faster than GTX Titan and 17% faster than GTX 780 it’s still the fastest of the cards, but it won’t pull ahead in this game by as much as it does elsewhere.
The minimum framerate story is largely the same. GTX 780 Ti is the fastest NVIDIA card, but it will trail the 290X by over 10% in both scenarios.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
302 Comments
View All Comments
Owls - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
Ryan I'm sorry but the video card reviews as of late have been very poor in quality and objectivity. Stop rushing to be the first. I don't go to Anand to read a crappy review, that's what HardOCP is for.That said your testing is flawed with old games and comparing the Ti to be faster than a 290x that is in silent mode is disingenuous. We all expect better from this site.
nsiboro - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
True - unfortunate wordings. But we gotta learn to read between the lines e.g. 780ti cannot be compared to 290/X. :)nunomoreira10 - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
totallywhy does he even compare the non "uber" 290x to the 780TI
its very misleading when he says it´s 11% faster then 290x not pointing out the fact that it was in silent mode.
also not sure which drivers were used on the 290x
hoboville - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
Sigh, I've always had good experiences with Nvidia products. They have always been good to me, but the pricing nonsense of GK110 has really put me off, a lot. I get it, you have the best so you charge people for the best, but all this does is put performance hardware further out of reach of people.Most people can't afford even $300 GPUs. A fact Maximum PC editors have commented on many times when they talk about how most people have relatively "low-end" hardware in their systems. AMD, because they haven't had the performance crown has clearly been going for performance-per-dollar. And that's good, very good for you. Because let's face it, money is a real determining factor for almost everyone.
And to think, if I did have $700 to spend, I'd spend $100 more and just get 2 R9 290s. 150% performance for 15% more money, not bad...
Trenzik - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
Very, very true comment. Money determines EVERYTHING. You know what makes something worth buying, price. I agree I prefer Nvidia due to past experience with AMD, BUT Nvidia is expensiveeeeee. Were talking a 4GB video card for 500 bucks.DominionSeraph - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
"Bloody" price war?The GK104 was designed to be the successor to the GF114, i.e. the $250 GTX 560 Ti. But as it turned out faster than AMD's high end chips it became the $500 GTX 680 and, 14 months later, the $400 GTX 770. The GK110 should've been the replacement for the GTX 580 at $500, but it became the $1000 Titan and $650 GTX 780. We are now 20 months past the release of the GK104 and all AMD's $550 launch price did was push Nvidia's midrange chip to $330.
The GTX 460 was hailed as the value king at launch at $200. Six months later you could get one for $90 as we saw a real price war between AMD and Nvidia.
20 months now and the GK104 is still going for $330, with Nvidia's back-pocket here being released at $700? There's no war here.
Skiddywinks - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
Yeh, I have to agree with your argument here. This is no "bloody" price war by any stretch.I can't fault companies for trying to make better margins, but there has not been a well priced GPU in years. Well priced compared to competition, sure, but I remember the days when £200 would typically get you the top end single GPU card. Hell, the HD 4870X2 cost me £330 only a month or two after launch. Now what does that get me? Probably an after market cooled 290. Not even the X.
TheJian - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
You guys are forgetting how much R&D these cost, how much money they make now compared to when chips were small and had higher yields (simpler) etc. These chips are HUGE and complicated to make. See my "simple economics" post. They haven't more than 2007 in the last 6yrs. Which should immediately explain why the price is high. They are not making as much even though they sell more than 2007.The 4870 was 256mm, not 550mm+. That card came with 956mil transistors vs. 7.1B here on a single chip (even 2x 4870's was smaller and 5B+ less transistors etc). It came with 512MB as 4870 (2GB on the 4870x2 I think) vs. 3GB of much faster stuff. 4870x2 launched at $550 and your price is $530us. That same $530 today almost gets you a 290x and it smokes your 4870x2 right? How is that bad?? You act like R&D is free (not just the chips either, software R&D too).
http://www.techpowerup.com/68231/amd-launches-rade...
I think it was samsung that said on dailytech the other day that it costs 20x more to make a chip today in R&D than 1995. Considering profits, it's amazing they sell this stuff at current pricing and actually quite stupid, they're doing you a favor on both sides - or they'd be making more money right? For instance, AMD 48mil first time profitable in 5 quarters, losing 6Billion+ in the last 10yrs. Umm, somebody is pricing crap wrong when you lose 6Billion in 10yrs. :)
There is no other way to say that ;) YOU NEED TO CHARGE MORE. Period. This low pricing has caused them to double their outstanding shares (meaning SERIOUS share dilution), sell their fabs, lose 6B, sell their land, lose the CPU war completely, have all kinds of driver issues (even Variance now with new 290x/290) etc etc...The list of crap low pricing has caused is HUGE. Did I mention the value of the company today (1/4 it's worth in just the last few years)? I digress...
DominionSeraph - Thursday, November 7, 2013 - link
You don't know what a GK104 is, do you?just4U - Friday, November 8, 2013 - link
Jian, They are not doing us any favors... Their in the business of making money (well mostly.. amd loses year over year but not due to their graphics department..) and looking for ways to entice you into parting with your coin.