Titan Black ?!

PaddieMayne

PaddieMayne

New member
Ok can some one tell me if im missing a serious point here!?

I currently have a 3gb GTX780 which i use for games on my Dell Ultrasharp 2560x1440 monitor, now ive heard that on these higher resolutions more vram is a good thing so i was looking for an upgrade, so ive considered the GTX780ti but this still only has 3gb of vram, then i looked at the titan black which as far as i can see matches the 780ti in every way except it has 6gb of vram, if this is the case please can some one tell me why nvidia think its ok to charge an extra £300 for just 3gb of extra vram, or have i seriously missed the point?

Also reccs for what my upgrade for my monitor would be appreciated, i play alot of Arma 3, my current spec is FX9590 ocd to 5ghz on an Asus formula z mobo and a xfx 1000w platinum psu with 16gb of 2400mhz gskill memory and 500gb samsung evo ssd.

Tempted to get another gtx780 and sli but weary of sli issues in games, not even sure if an sli profile for arma 3 exists ?

Also tempted to sell current gtx780 to buy a gtx780ti?

What do you experts think?

Thanks for the help chaps and chappesses.
 
Pretty sure there is an SLI profile for A3 now. If you want Arma 3 to run better you'd have to go down the intel route due to how the game utilises CPU cores (or rather, doesn't). Check your VRAM usage next time you're gaming and if you max it out then maaaaaaaaaybe consider something with more VRAM. Otherwise I wouldn't bother changing GPU setups as you can't get a load more frames from the game without making the change I suggested earlier.
The Titan Black is a compute card with gaming capabilities, hence the price.
 
Last edited:
Well yeah thats just it when i play with max settings, the game isnt even maxing my current cpu, im seeing at max about 70% usage on one of the cores while the rest are at around 10 to 20%, as for vram its about 70 to 80%, however im still getting only a max of 40fps !

Is there a way to find out if ans sli profile exists for arma3 ? do you think a 6gb 780ti will ever be offered ?

Thanks for the help.
 
PaddieMayne said:
Well yeah thats just it when i play with max settings, the game isnt even maxing my current cpu, im seeing at max about 70% usage on one of the cores while the rest are at around 10 to 20%, as for vram its about 70 to 80%, however im still getting only a max of 40fps !

Is there a way to find out if ans sli profile exists for arma3 ? do you think a 6gb 780ti will ever be offered ?

Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...
The game can't max out the cpu as it doesn't detect more than 4 cores (hence low frames) and using the splash cpu count thing can improve that however I'd suggest you look into it before trying it yourself as it can cause damage if not properly done.I run a 8320 and performance can get crap oand I sit at around 30fps on ultra normally however whenever the ai is involved it drops quite significantly. I think there will be a 6gb 780ti considering there is a 6gb 780, although the 6gb 780 is designed to compete with the 290/290x so the 780ti doesn't have any real competition.
 
PaddieMayne said:
Well yeah thats just it when i play with max settings, the game isnt even maxing my current cpu, im seeing at max about 70% usage on one of the cores while the rest are at around 10 to 20%, as for vram its about 70 to 80%, however im still getting only a max of 40fps !

Is there a way to find out if ans sli profile exists for arma3 ? do you think a 6gb 780ti will ever be offered ?

Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...

You aren't getting a good framerate because AMD CPUs are garbage for ArmA. ArmA isn't a very GPU intense game, your 780 will do you just fine and 780 SLi makes more sense than buying a Titan Black.
The main difference between the Titan Black and the 780ti is double precision or 64bit computing. Games don't use it, even though Star Citizen is looking into utilizing it.
 
You say AMD games are garbage for Arma, yet Arma 3 doesnt even fully utilize one of my cpu cores, so this must be a game coding issue rather than a hardware issue surely ?

Or can you honestly tell me that ArmA 3 utilizes intel cpu core much better i.e 100% ?

So SeekaX you would say get a 2nd gtx780 rather than a single gtx780ti?
 
PaddieMayne said:
You say AMD games are garbage for Arma, yet Arma 3 doesnt even fully utilize one of my cpu cores, so this must be a game coding issue rather than a hardware issue surely ?

Or can you honestly tell me that ArmA 3 utilizes intel cpu core much better i.e 100% ?

So SeekaX you would say get a 2nd gtx780 rather than a single gtx780ti?
Click to expand...

The cores aren't at 100% use because the engine doesn't use AMD cores properly. The game runs much better on Intel cores, that has been the case with every ArmA.
To be honest if i were you i wouldn't get a second 780 nor a 780ti because neither of those will improve your framerate in ArmA3. It's your CPU bottlenecking. If ArmA 3 is your main game of choice you should upgrade to an Intel CPU.
 
Have you got any proof for that SeekaX, as if you do i would seriou8sly consider the swap to intel. Ive been looking at a 4770k and Asus MAXIMUS VI FORMULA as i have custom WC.
 
PaddieMayne said:
Have you got any proof for that SeekaX, as if you do i would seriou8sly consider the swap to intel. Ive been looking at a 4770k and Asus MAXIMUS VI FORMULA as i have custom WC.
Click to expand...
Do you play online more than single player? In single player the 9590 keeps up with the 4770/4670 (within a few frames) however multiplayer is a different kettle of fish.
Its pretty well known that Arma3 is pretty poor with cpu usage.
 
The Arma III Engine does indeed favour Intel cores because Intels architecture has a more superior IPC Rate core for core than AMD this is especially prevalent when taking Armas AI into account.

x8vcXvv.jpg

Image Source: Anandtech.
 
Yes i do play online all the time on Waisteland.

Thanks for the graph but its quite old as its an alpha test, would be interested to see an up to date one, struggling to find one myself, also i see the fx8350 performs quite well when you consider the price difference between that and the i7 chips listed.
 
PaddieMayne said:
Have you got any proof for that SeekaX, as if you do i would seriou8sly consider the swap to intel. Ive been looking at a 4770k and Asus MAXIMUS VI FORMULA as i have custom WC.
Click to expand...
Read barnsley's post. I only had an FX-4100 to test ArmA 2, which was ridiculously bad, but piledriver should be an improvement. Apparently not in ArmA.
 
PaddieMayne said:
Yes i do play online all the time on Waisteland.

Thanks for the graph but its quite old as its an alpha test, would be interested to see an up to date one, struggling to find one myself, also i see the fx8350 performs quite well when you consider the price difference between that and the i7 chips listed.
Click to expand...
Yeah the price difference isn't really that worth it, especially considering at how the 9590 keeps up with the 4770 in most games (or even a 3930k when it comes to streaming).

I've been looking into the scaling for SLi/Crossfire and it seems to be really good. It seems around 70/80% increase for SLi and ~100 for crossfire. You could actually go for a second 780 and get a nice boost after all it seems.

-edit-
Didn't see the post about being online. In all honesty online has massive performance issues, however they are supposedly fixing it.
SeekaX said:
Read barnsley's post. I only had an FX-4100 to test ArmA 2, which was ridiculously bad, but piledriver should be an improvement. Apparently not in ArmA.
Click to expand...

Nah, it actually is probably the best example of the improvements of piledriver. Point in hand a 8150 runs A3 as well as a i3 while the 8350 keeps up with the i5/i7 (ish).
 
Last edited:
The FX8350 does do well in that test at 40fps but if you look the i5 2500k is 2 frames in front....

Have you tried running with post processing turned down? I have noticed many on the Steam forums who run AMD notice a significant difference in performance.
 
Wraithguard said:
The FX8350 does do well in that test at 40fps but if you look the i5 2500k is 2 frames in front....
Click to expand...
From what I've seen its the ol' no consistent test. Multiplayer has so many performance issues every cpu struggles currently and from what I've seen the 8350 and haswell are equal (within 2 fps). Extreme series seem to be ahead, albeit not much. I guess it will also depend on the server being played on as well, especially if its done like the old Arma 2 way.

-edit- if you want some extra fps, try the good ol' splash count cpu trick, althought I don't think the cpu boost will be that great. It also works on intel cpus.
Read it in full, its very bad if you cock up and I won't be held responsible for it.
 
Last edited:
ahimoth said:
arma-19-and-25-fr.png


As you can see every single GPU is getting slapped left and right with only the GTX 690 and if they had it 7990 approaching the goal of a 60FPS average. Get a 2nd GTX 780 :) you have to run dual GPU's it seems.

Their test rig: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-7.html

To be honest I'm always skeptical of Tom's benchmarks but they come out in some serious bulk so yeah always like using them as a starting point.
Click to expand...

There is a 7990 in the benchmark result, but the score is odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Advise on my proposed build please
Replies
4
Views
472
AlienALX
AlienALX
Dawelio
Monitors these days?...
Replies
1
Views
3K
Warchild
W
S
Intel or AMD
Replies
14
Views
790
Strechy0
S
dipzy
New Monitor time
Replies
7
Views
11K
dipzy
dipzy
P
Best DDR4/DDR5 gaming RAM (no heat sync) & advice!
Replies
1
Views
4K
Bang
Bang
Back
Top