780ti overpriced?

[Dicehunter]

I agree, the difference isn't going to be noticeable unless you dial your resolution all the way up to 4k or something, as a result the regular 290 or 780 are better buys for more sane resolutions.

Heck, if it's only 1080p we're talking about, you're probably not going to notice a difference between the 290X/780Ti and the GTX 770/R9-280X, aside from price that is. I want a R9-290X/290, but if I'm honest my 7950 has plenty life left in it yet.

This is the problem with a lot of hardware out there where diminishing returns kick in, you won't notice the difference in a lot of cases. Countless examples out there, like the i5 vs i7, premium SSDs vs more basic ones etc.

But hey what do I know? I have a hard time (read: I don't) noticing a difference in Games (even Skyrim) between my FX-8350 and my friends i7-2600k with both at stock despite Tech site after Tech site saying the former is a "Crap" gaming CPU, and never recommending it. ^_^

The 8350 is good for gaming, The channel "Tek Syndicate" on youtube did tests and the 8350 was maybe 0.1 of a frame behind in some games compared to an i7, sometimes ahead by a frame and sometimes behind by up to 4-5 frames.

For instance, Using an 8350 against a core i5 3570K with a GTX 670 in farcry 3 the i5 gets 31 fps at 1080p and 18 fps at 1440p.
The 8350 gets 67 fps at 1080p and 44 fps at 1440p.
BUT then you get other games that favor intel and others that favor AMD large amount of cores.

Heres the video, Well worth a watch if your in the market for a new CPU and mobo -

 

[SieB]

I agree, the difference isn't going to be noticeable unless you dial your resolution all the way up to 4k or something, as a result the regular 290 or 780 are better buys for more sane resolutions.

Heck, if it's only 1080p we're talking about, you're probably not going to notice a difference between the 290X/780Ti and the GTX 770/R9-280X, aside from price that is. I want a R9-290X/290, but if I'm honest my 7950 has plenty life left in it yet.

This is the problem with a lot of hardware out there where diminishing returns kick in, you won't notice the difference in a lot of cases. Countless examples out there, like the i5 vs i7, premium SSDs vs more basic ones etc.

But hey what do I know? I have a hard time (read: I don't) noticing a difference in Games (even Skyrim) between my FX-8350 and my friends i7-2600k with both at stock despite Tech site after Tech site saying the former is a "Crap" gaming CPU, and never recommending it. ^_^

The problem is more to do with people with hiveminds who look at things in a very narrow minded way (it's faster therefore it's better) and just listen to what other people say and parrot it.

When you actually look into things without listening to marketing crap, fanboyism, hivemind mentality and actually look at real world performance on how something actually performs, then you can see what it really comes down to and whether something is worth the extra.

Just to be clear to everyone there is no mistake that the 780Ti is the faster card and is quieter and cooler than the 290x.

But when you compare it against the 290 which is £330 and the 780Ti which is £550 can you honestly say that where the 780Ti is faster that is worth an extra £220?

Even at 1600p most games where the 780Ti is faster you are not going to notice the differences in frame rate. You could play the same game, at the same res, with either card, not knowing which one you were using and not tell the difference.

At 1080p the frame rate difference is even more insignificant because both cards are pulling FPS in the 100's and you are not going to physically notice the difference. You are effectively buying a card based on it being able to produce more FPS even though you aren't even going to notice that extra FPS. That basically spending £220 more just to say I have more FPS, even though it makes no difference.

At 1080p the 780 or the 290 are much better value, if you want physx then go Nvidia. Gsync is pointless on a 1080p monitor with 1 card, Shadowplay is a novelty that most people won't use after the novelty wears off. The only people that will use Shadowplay and need it are Youtubers and streamers.

If I were you i'd go with the 780 or wait and see how the non ref 290s are. People are already getting temps in the 55-70s with custom coolers like the Gelid Icy Vision on the 290/290x with 1100-1150mhz overclocks. And that's without custom PCBs and better BIOs that cards like the DCU II and Giga Windforce etc will have.

Seriously the 780 or 290 are the much better options for you at 1080p.

 

[Kroma]

The 8350 is good for gaming, The channel "Tek Syndicate" on youtube did tests and the 8350 was maybe 0.1 of a frame behind in some games compared to an i7, sometimes ahead by a frame and sometimes behind by up to 4-5 frames.

For instance, Using an 8350 against a core i5 3570K with a GTX 670 in farcry 3 the i5 gets 31 fps at 1080p and 18 fps at 1440p.
The 8350 gets 67 fps at 1080p and 44 fps at 1440p.
BUT then you get other games that favor intel and others that favor AMD large amount of cores.

Heres the video, Well worth a watch if your in the market for a new CPU and mobo -

My rigs done, just need a new gpu thx

 

[SeekaX]

But when you compare it against the 290 which is £330 and the 780Ti which is £550 can you honestly say that where the 780Ti is faster that is worth an extra £220?

and can you honestly say the 290 is worth the extra 80 quid over a 280x? if we'd all only focus on price/performance we'd all be sitting here with 7870LEs.

 

[Zoot]

The 8350 is good for gaming, The channel "Tek Syndicate" on youtube did tests and the 8350 was maybe 0.1 of a frame behind in some games compared to an i7, sometimes ahead by a frame and sometimes behind by up to 4-5 frames.

Yeah I've seen that before. I remember the response it generated among the greater PC hardware community, everybody insinuating their results were false. And that's another problem, everybody probably benches different parts of different games, getting different results.

I quite like the guys at Tek Syndicate, they seem more down to earth than most.

The problem is more to do with people with hiveminds who look at things in a very narrow minded way (it's faster therefore it's better) and just listen to what other people say and parrot it.

You've hit the nail on the head there.

[side rant]

I'll be honest, the PC Tech community really does irk me at times. Power consumption is an example, everybody gets all hot and bothered over which draws less power. My old friend the FX-8350 got thrashed in loads of reviews for its power consumption, since the Intels are more efficient.

To be honest, if you're folding or something where you're running 100% CPU usage, then it matters but for normal usage with moderate heavy usage (eg. Gaming) you're talking a negligible cost increase for power draw each year. So negligible in fact, that it doesn't even justify the price of the more expensive CPU because of its lower power consumption most of the time.

I honestly couldn't care about power consumption (within reason) on the desktop since the cost difference it tiny at the end of the day. However this isn't to say it's important in the mobile world. There, Power consumption is everything. But for everyone getting all hot and bothered about power consumption on the desktop, it's like everyone has bought into Intels marketing hype.

[/side rant]

 

[SieB]

and can you honestly say the 290 is worth the extra 80 quid over a 280x? if we'd all only focus on price/performance we'd all be sitting here with 7870LEs.

Well you can say that all the way down the line, but there is a big difference between £80 and £220 especially where the differences in performance are unnoticeable in most circumstances.

The point is that just because something is faster and more expensive doesn't mean it's better.

 

[Kroma]

Derailed

 

[Zoot]

Derailed

To answer the thread question, yes in my opinion it is overpriced for the reason you're not going to notice the difference.

 

[SeekaX]

Well you can say that all the way down the line, but there is a big difference between £80 and £220 especially where the differences in performance are unnoticeable in most circumstances.

The point is that just because something is faster and more expensive doesn't mean it's better.

when something is faster it is better. the question is if it is worth it to you, just like for some people a 290 is mad money and completely unreasonable.

people pay a million dollars for a bugatti veyron, but they can afford it and it makes them happy and that car sure as hell isn't worse than a 10k$ VW just because the price/performance ratio is horrible.

price should not be the highest priority when it comes to enthusiasm. you can't put a price tag on happiness.

 

[Kroma]

But I want the highest frames possible on a single gpu!!!

 

[SeekaX]

But I want the highest frames possible on a single gpu!!!

get the 780ti already, the 290 would be the more sensible buy if you had only eyes for your wallet, but the 780ti is obviously what you want. there is no arguing with that.

 

[Kroma]

Yea but someone brought up a good point that the 780ti and the 290x would be the same, on a 1080p,resolution.

 

[SeekaX]

Yea but someone brought up a good point that the 780ti and the 290x would be the same, on a 1080p,resolution.

they aren't, the 780ti is the strongest card. watch tom's review.
now obviously the aftermarket cooler could make a difference, but not a huge one tbh. i'd take the 780ti just for the stock cooler because it looks better than any aftermarket cooling solution and still gets the job done very well.

 

[Zoot]

Yea but someone brought up a good point that the 780ti and the 290x would be the same, on a 1080p,resolution.

Numerically (frames per second) the 780Ti will give you the higher number.

But that's just it, it's just a number, your eye isn't going to notice more than 60fps, that's where the diminishing returns kick in.

 

[SeekaX]

Numerically (frames per second) the 780Ti will give you the higher number.

But that's just it, it's just a number, your eye isn't going to notice more than 60fps, that's where the diminishing returns kick in.

i beg to differ. ask any competitive FPS player, they will tell you the same.

 

[Zoot]

i beg to differ. ask any competitive FPS player, they will tell you the same.

Depending on the game, for me, even 30fps can be enough. Are most of the console games not rendered at 30fps rather than 60? I'd agree a First-Person Shooter is different, but for me if I get 60fps+ on those, everything is fine. I don't notice 70/80/90/100fps being any better, I actually have to turn on Afterburner to tell me that there actually is a difference.

If you can notice a difference, then more power to you, but I can't.

Although maybe I'm getting old or I'm just insane, I can't notice a difference most of time. ^_^

 

[Kroma]

I believe you are just out of date... Ps4 and xbox one are 60 FPS now.. Yes anything over 60 FPS Is a waste if you are just playing an rts game. Anything fast moving like an FPS you benefit from the double frames, with less eye strain etc.

 

[SeekaX]

Depending on the game, for me, even 30fps can be enough. Are most of the console games not rendered at 30fps rather than 60? I'd agree a First-Person Shooter is different, but for me if I get 60fps+ on those, everything is fine.

If you can notice a difference, then more power to you, but I can't.

Although maybe I'm getting old or I'm just insane, I can't notice a difference most of time. ^_^

i bought L.A. Noire two days ago and the 30fps cap is making me go crazy. i'd unlock it, but that would mess with the facial animations of the characters, which pretty much makes the games.
playing cod at anything lower than 125fps is a nightmare, same applies to counter strike and quake.
and when having a 120hz monitor it makes a huge difference in pretty much every game.

 

[Zoot]

I believe you are just out of date... Ps4 and xbox one are 60 FPS now.. Yes anything over 60 FPS Is a waste if you are just playing an rts game. Anything fast moving like an FPS you benefit from the double frames, with less eye strain etc.

Are the current-gen consoles ie. Xbox 360 and PS3 30fps? I gather the new consoles are 60fps, although not at 1080p natively yet though. I'm open to correction, I've no interest in consoles, PC gamer to the core and all that.

Anyway, I think you've answered your own question in this thread. The 780Ti is the fastest single GPU card out there, that's what to get. Whether it's worth it or not, or whether you'll actually notice the difference over say an R9 290 are seperate debates prone to fanboyism/hivemindedness and those could go along forever.

i bought L.A. Noire two days ago and the 30fps cap is making me go crazy. i'd unlock it, but that would mess with the facial animations of the characters, which pretty much makes the games.
playing cod at anything lower than 125fps is a nightmare, same applies to counter strike and quake.
and when having a 120hz monitor it makes a huge difference in pretty much every game.

A "nightmare" for you anyway, not necessarily everyone.

Anyway, I don't have a 120Hz monitor, and I haven't played a COD game in like 5+ years now, so I can't comment on those, not to mention phrases like "huge difference" are subjective and thus debatable.

We'll just have to agree to disagree eh?

EDIT: I got L.A. Noire recently too, I've yet to play it though. I didn't know it has a 30fps cap at all.

 

[SieB]

You can unlock the 30FPS cap in LA Noire btw h34r:

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2421930