EVGA 780Ti ACX cooler

not even a back plate with that price of that card.
 
Nokia said:
not even a back plate with that price of that card.
Click to expand...
do you know anything about the ACX? it does not really need a backplate anyway as it already has plate on top of the memory to keep it cooler and stiffen the card.
 
There is a classified version on the website as well. Model number 03G-P4-2888-KR
 
xoleras said:
No.
Click to expand...

yes yes its
that ram is used for more then just the frame buffer
start stuffing high res textures and other data in and fills up fast
one draw back of the 780Ti
it really needs more ram
 
Elios said:
yes yes its
that ram is used for more then just the frame buffer
start stuffing high res textures and other data in and fills up fast
one draw back of the 780Ti
it really needs more ram
Click to expand...
I still have yet to really feel the effects that this argument suggests.

Even while playing Skyrim, loaded to the teeth with mods, RAM is the least of my concerns. GPU simply isn't fast enough to keep up, even while well below the 3GB memory barrier. 5760x1200 is a lot to render, after all.

I've honestly seen larger gains from increasing memory frequency than capacity... and obviously so did Nvidia. The 780 Ti's RAM is clocked at a full 1 GHz faster than the RAM on the 780 and Titan.
 
MiLk said:
Is more than 3GB VRAM even used for single 1440p/1600p setups?

I wasn't really able to find any VRAM benchmarks after quickly searching
Click to expand...

In Battlefield 4 if I crank the Resolution scale above 140% I hit the VRam wall. Right at 3GB used. Though one can question if it's really needed at 1440P (I certainly can't tell a difference beyond 115% res. scale)
 
pandora's box said:
In Battlefield 4 if I crank the Resolution scale above 140% I hit the VRam wall. Right at 3GB used. Though one can question if it's really needed at 1440P (I certainly can't tell a difference beyond 115% res. scale)
Click to expand...

You realize that resolution scale is OGSSAA? That is downsampling SSAA, yes, it uses VRAM. Under normal use you will never, ever, pass 3GB. Not unless you use stupid anti aliasing levels with SGSSAA or OGSSAA or use tons of game mods.

Anyone saying that 6GB is needed at 1600p is nuts, I play at that resolution and nothing even approaches 3GB. Nothing. Not even the most demanding games. Hell, the VRAM usage stays under even 2GB for pretty much everything unless - again - you use stupid levels of SGSSAA or game mods.
 
Last edited:
DisposableHero said:
isnt the 780ti pcb the same a the 780.. why is there a special acx version?
Click to expand...

Not the same PCB as the 780.

The 780ti ACX is a reference PCB so the overclocking headroom will be limited as compared to other non ref designs. That said, the power input parameters were adjusted somewhat as to allow slightly better overclocking on even reference designs - yet aftermarket will still be substantially better in this respect.
 
03G-P4-2884-KR with ACX is now up for sale & it went up from 719 to 729...lol
 
Pictures have leaked on a galaxy hall of fame 780ti

Shouldn't be too long now before the non reference pcbs are out
 
FRZ said:
Pictures have leaked on a galaxy hall of fame 780ti

Shouldn't be too long now before the non reference pcbs are out
Click to expand...

difference between non reference pcbs vs reference is overclock ability?

are all GPUs by EVGA reference?
 
The classified isn't a reference PCB. There may be others, but I forget since EVGA has like 17 million SKUs
 
MiLk said:
difference between non reference pcbs vs reference is overclock ability?

are all GPUs by EVGA reference?
Click to expand...

The non reference pcbs have enhanced components and usually a more efficient design. Evga classified is the evga non reference card which is pretty much their top end product. There is already listing for a classified 780 ti on the evga website so we should see them hit stores soon
 
pandora's box said:
I was merely stating that it is possible to use more than 3gb of ram at 1440p
Click to expand...

Except SSAA isn't 2650x1440p... 2x SSAA is 5120x2880, and 4x SSAA is 10240x5760.

Running 4x SSAA on a 2560x1440 monitor is equivalent to running six 3840x2160 (4k) monitors spanned.

Not sure how classic SSAA levels equate to BF4's resolution percentage slider, but you get the idea... this form of AA is not for the faint of heart.
 
Unknown-One said:
Except SSAA isn't 2650x1440p... 2x SSAA is 5120x2880, and 4x SSAA is 10240x5760.

Running 4x SSAA on a 2560x1440 monitor is equivalent to running six 4k monitors spanned.
Click to expand...
2560x1440 to 5120x2880 is FOUR times the resolution not two.
 
cannondale06 said:
2560x1440 to 5120x2880 is FOUR times the resolution not two.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. What's your point? That's how SSAA modes work.

2x2 SSAA (abbreviated 2x SSAA) multiplies the horizontal and vertical resolution by 2. This means 4 times more pixels.
4x4 SSAA (abbreviated 4x SSAA) multiplies the horizontal and vertical resolution by 4, this leads to 16 times more pixels.

There are also intermediate SSAA modes like like 4x2 (4x the horizontal, 2x the vertical, 8x more pixels), which trade additional aliasing on the vertical axis for a lower internal resolution and more performance.

SSAA can also work in fractions (as we see in BF4, with its percentage-based slider). It's not uncommon to find 1.5x SSAA (1.5x horizontal, 1.5x vertical, 2.25x more pixels) being used in-concert with FXAA, because FXAA's effectiveness and accuracy increases exponentially with working resolution.
 
Last edited:
2x SSAA and 4x SSAA cant possibly be 4x and 8x as demanding can it? someone else on another forum said they were running 2x SSAA at 1280x720 and claimed their game was the equivalent of trying to run 2560x1440. that was nonsense when I tested it out in Tomb Raider. 2x SSAA at 1280x720 was about the same performance level as running 1600x900 with no AA. even 4x AA at 1280 was no where near as demanding as running 2560x1440. so what am Im missing here?
 
Last edited:
Depends on a number of factors.

When SSAA is implemented in-engine (like in Tomb Raider), the developer can pick and choose exactly which elements are rendered at higher resolution. For example, full screen pixel shaders can be run AFTER the SSAA stage rather than before. This leads to a HUGE reduction in the number of pixels said shader needs to process compared to running the entire game at that resolution.

It's also possible Tomb Raider has mislabeled its SSAA modes (treating 2x SSAA at 200% more pixels rather than the old-school definition of 2x2 the resolution)... heck, since they don't define both axis, it could be doing 2x1 SSAA, with the intent that you'll enable FXAA to clean up the aliasing on the vertical axis.

And then there's adaptive super-sampling, which specifically targets aliasing and only renders edges at higher resolution. This method renders the entire screen at low resolution and runs an analysis to determine which pixels have neighboring pixels that are of significantly different value. If a pixel and its neighbor fall above a predefined threshold, then more samples of that area are rendered in order to contribute to the average (thus smoothing the edge). Not nearly as taxing as brute-force supersampling the entire screen, and the threshold can be increased or decreased so that the user can decide between effectiveness and performance.
 
Last edited:
well here are my numbers for Tomb Raider if it matters.

1280x720 with 2x SSAA = 108 FPS
1280x720 with 4x SSAA = 80 FPS
2560x1440 with no AA = 55 FPS
 
MiLk said:
Is more than 3GB VRAM even used for single 1440p/1600p setups?

I wasn't really able to find any VRAM benchmarks after quickly searching
Click to expand...

Nope, it's really not, barring OBSCENELY high levels of supersampling to where you can't even see the difference in screenshots and the performance level would be too low with the GPU anyway to make use of even if it had enough vram. "Needing" tons of VRAM is a major misconception just like "needing" a 1.5kw PSU for a single-gpu single-cpu rig with an ssd and some case fans is.
 
it would be nice to have some optional high resolution textures in upcoming games. that has basically zero impact on performance as long as you have enough vram.
 
Using obscene amounts of SSAA is not the proper answer for VRAM usage - your Titan or 780ti will slow to a crawl with any type of SSAA, this is not a realistic real world anti aliasing method. It is far too GPU intensive, even to this day. I really think that higher resolution textures are the answer for more VRAM usage, that can provide immense IQ benefits without such a ridiculous drop in performance; in fact there should be no drop in performance at all. Most games simply use 4k textures now when 16k textures are entirely do-able. Higher resolution textures and more assets are the answer to VRAM utilization, SSAA isn't - one can be done with minimal GPU utilization, while the other (SSAA) will bring have any high end card begging for mercy; you will run out of GPU power well before VRAM becomes any type of issue while using SSAA.
 
cannondale06 said:
it would be nice to have some optional high resolution textures in upcoming games. that has basically zero impact on performance as long as you have enough vram.
Click to expand...
How exactly to you propose to implement higher resolution textures without impacting GPU load?

That's more data to move across the PCIe bus...
Longer loading times and/or more stuttering as you wait for that extra data to transfer from system RAM...
Larger files for the GPU to decompress (more waiting, more GPU load)...
More raw data clogging up the memory bus on the card itself...
More pixels the GPU has to crunch when those textures make up part of a surface shader (most surfaces in most modern games are this)...
More pixels to scale and transform...
More pixels that Anisotropic Filtering has to chew on (if you up all textures from 4k to 16k you WILL notice AF taking a massive bite out of performance)

More-more-more. You can't simply install obscenely-high-resolution textures, fill up 6GB of video RAM with them, and expect performance to stay the same...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top