Does anyone know how a reference GTX 970 stacks up to a reference 780? I've not been able to find any benchmarks of this nature online. Most seem to be of OC 970's to reference 780's which isnt a fair comparision.
Printable View
Does anyone know how a reference GTX 970 stacks up to a reference 780? I've not been able to find any benchmarks of this nature online. Most seem to be of OC 970's to reference 780's which isnt a fair comparision.
Reference I think you are looking at a 5-10% performance increase with the 970 however when overclocked 970 surpasses the 780 greatly.
I doubt there are reference 970s in the market other than Palit tho?
But again, the avg performance of 970 is higher than 780 OCed.
Heard that a 970 is better than a 780, but not a 780Ti
If I were in the market to choose one over the other right now, I would pick the 970.Quote:
Originally Posted by Game388
Totally agree, that why i'm planning to buy one this weekend :pQuote:
Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon
From what I've seen the 970 is about the same as a 780, the difference between the 2 probably isn't noticeable in games. The 780ti is still a bit faster.
The 970 is MUCH better value for money though and uses a lot less power. You shouldn't even consider the older models really if your buying new.
If you already have a 780/780ti it's not worth upgrading unless it's to a 980.
Hard to justify a 780/ti purchase at the moment, save for an SLI addition.
Occasionally a card comes on to the market and offers great value.
Even a 980 won't offer much over an existing 780, else I'd have bought two.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1036?vs=1351Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
...and an extra gigabyte of VRAM :)
Are those both stock reference cards, are they using the same rig, are they overclocked...? More detail, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJim
As is, I doubt I'd really notice the dozen or so extra FPS or the 3 degrees lower temperature, but my 780 Lightning OCs to pretty much Ti level anyway.
Everyone's all flapping about VRAM too, these days. Even 8 Gig is not enough... if certain game reviews are to be believed, that is. But since the only games that seem to require such massive VRAM are badly optimised, console-port screw-up failures from Ubisoft anyway, I don't think it's much of a concern.
Add to this the large numbers of players still playing in resolutions far lower than 4k and there's just no need for it... just like there's no need for 32GB of DDR4 RAM (unless you're a DDR4 retailer, of course!).
VRAM isn't really if your only playing at 1080. But even in 4k 3gb is enough from what I've seen.
True, but with some modern games, even a 980 struggles to run them at 60fps. For that you'll need SLI 780ti's or better.