EVGA GTX 780 6GB and GTX 780 Ti 6GB

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,548
Step-Up Eligible - $549.99 780 Reference in April | 780Ti in May/June

http://www.evga.com/articles/00830/

6iB2mMW.jpg


A6Q7ZDo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Never done a step up before. What does something like this cost and would it be worth it? Running a 780ti Kingpin.
 
Never done a step up before. What does something like this cost and would it be worth it? Running a 780ti Kingpin.

Jacob said the the Kingpin may also receive an update to 6GB, but they're not sure yet.
Speed wise, you still have the better card. Also your card is above the Step-Up chart so it will not be eligible.

Now I would love to see a GTX 790 12GB (6GB per GPU).
 
A 6GB GTX 780 this late? Smells like Maxwell is coming sooner than I thought.
 
You guys think EVGA will undercut the Titan Black by releasing an identical 6gb 780 Ti?
 
Could be $749.

At this point 20nm is late 2014 early 2015. The Nvidia partners like EVGA who are exclusive have to release something this Summer to generate revenue, even at the cost of undercutting themselves.
 
Very interesting. I wonder if this is for EVGA only , or if other AIBs are following suit? Why is it only EVGA with the announce so far. Other AIBs would have to be miffed if EVGA had exclusivity on this sorta thing....wouldn't they?
 
Very interesting. I wonder if this is for EVGA only , or if other AIBs are following suit? Why is it only EVGA with the announce so far. Other AIBs would have to be miffed if EVGA had exclusivity on this sorta thing....wouldn't they?


Because they are the biggest manufacturer on the Nvidia side with the largest market share. EVGA does ridiculous things sometimes like releasing two version of every single card with different SKU numbers. I'm sure one or two others will follow, but much like the Titan/Titan Black the margins are small and few are going to drop the money for that investment.

The 600/700 Series has been a disaster with the countless card variations of every model. Options may be "great", but the past 2 years have had "milking" written all over it.
 
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I don't think it's confirmed to be exclusive yet. As far as your latter comment, i'm not quite understanding you - if you're talking NV on a general basis, i'd say GTX 600/700 has been wildly successful for nvidia. They upped their dGPU market share from 50% to nearly 66% currently. The market share for mobile dGPU is higher than that, so it's been incredibly successful for NV. Unless you're talking specifically about EVGA, in which yeah. I'm not a fan of how they create 20 SKUs of the same GPU. I mean the GTX 680 itself had like 12 EVGA SKUs, including FTW, SC, SC+, it was all quite silly. So if that's what you're saying, i'd agree. I'm more of a fan of the base reference model, perhaps an overclocked model, and a premium model (such as the gigabyte windforce ghz) just as an example. That's 3 SKUs, i'm not sure why EVGA sees fit to make 20 SKUs for the same chip.

But in any case we don't know if this is exclusive. Kinda doubt it. I mean, the 6GB models have a 50$ premium over 3GB. I'm quite sure they will sell well, and i'm sure other AIBs would want to sell them.
 
Last edited:
But in any case we don't know if this is exclusive. Kinda doubt it. I mean, the 6GB models have a 50$ premium over 3GB. I'm quite sure they will sell well, and i'm sure other AIBs would want to sell them.

I didn't mean exclusive as in, EVGA only. I meant EVGA exclusively makes Nvidia cards, so they are more desperate to release a 6GB card to bridge the gap until Maxwell.
Other AIBs like ASUS can care less to make a 6GB 780, because their cards were consistently sold out during the AMD mining craze. Will see others do it after EVGA does.
 
I don't wanna sound like a newb, but what major advantage of having 6gb vs 3gb? 5-10 more fps? Or is it more for longevity purposes?
 
At least this card won't cost $1K which is good news for most people, I too would get one too if I needed one.
 
I don't wanna sound like a newb, but what major advantage of having 6gb vs 3gb? 5-10 more fps? Or is it more for longevity purposes?

With the same GPU, and at regular/mainstream resolutions (under 2560x1600), it really won't make much of a difference at all. (i.e. No FPS increase.)

4K gaming capability is probably the biggest reason as well as supporting surround setups which also revs up the pixel count in a big way.

TVs are starting to catch up to monitor resolutions. 4K TV panels will pretty much become mainstream in a few years as well, so these cards will still hold their own then whereas 3GB cards won't be able to handle all the textures/full eye candy settings at the higher resolutions.
 
Correct. 3GB is fine for the vast majority of users. More VRAM doesn't increase performance, but it does allow higher image quality at 4k resolutions or beyond. Even then, 3GB is fine at 4k resolution unless you turn AA up too high.
 
I don't wanna sound like a newb, but what major advantage of having 6gb vs 3gb? 5-10 more fps? Or is it more for longevity purposes?
Simple answer is that these are for people that want to run SLI at very high resolutions and crank settings. 780/780ti SLI and especially tri SLI can easily run games at settings that may exceed 3gb of vram. Heck at just 2560x1440, I can nearly peg my 3gb vram in spots of Thief on max settings and at 3200x1800 it will hitch in spots from running out. So just imagine running 4k or higher res surround setups.
 
I recently bought an eVGA GTX 780ti. Would it be a good idea to step up to a GTX 780 6GB if the GTX 780 Ti 6GB is not released in time for me to be eligible for the step up program? I would then get another 780 6GB and SLI them. I currently have 2 Dell 30" monitors and will likely get another in the near future for surround gaming.
 
It depends. If you're certain that you're going to do triple screen gaming, I think 6GB could make a case for itself at 7680@1600. That's quite an insane resolution. For 2560x1600 though, 3GB is more than fine.
 
Last edited:
When these come out, they're going to be at least $100 more than the 3GB 780's, given the downward trend of 780 prices lately. I don't feel as if the pricing makes these a fair deal...simply doubling the VRAM can't be adding THAT much cost, right? But please correct me if I'm wrong.

I do understand the niche need for this much VRAM for those folks running massive resolutions via multi-screen setups, but I still can't wrap my head around the pricing being fair compared to the 3GB counterparts.
 
When these come out, they're going to be at least $100 more than the 3GB 780's, given the downward trend of 780 prices lately. I don't feel as if the pricing makes these a fair deal...simply doubling the VRAM can't be adding THAT much cost, right? But please correct me if I'm wrong.

I do understand the niche need for this much VRAM for those folks running massive resolutions via multi-screen setups, but I still can't wrap my head around the pricing being fair compared to the 3GB counterparts.

Did you read the first post?

780 3GB $499 - 780 6GB $549
 
Did you read the first post?

780 3GB $499 - 780 6GB $549

Yes I did, but I don't see where $550 is confirmed.

Besides, 780 3GB prices are dropping slightly right now, as they are dipping into the $470 range (after rebates, to be fair, but still). Maybe they'll be even lower by the time the 780 6GB launches in April.

The pricing for the 6GB versions could very well be lead by supply and demand, leaving the door wide open for eVGA to price them however they want if they limit production and there's a lot of customers using the step-up program to get one (or more). And I can see them doing just that - gouging a bit, hence why I speculate at least $100 more over the 3GB versions.
 
Last edited:
If this release drops the price of 3GB 780s to the $400-$450 range, I'll jump at the chance to add another to my rig for some SLI goodness :D. Would love to get close to the 144 FPS sweetspot without needing to compromise image quality.
 
I'll take two of those reference model 780 6gb cards. Got 4k display, might as well use it. Also have a tony box that does not like open air coolers.
 
Simple answer is that these are for people that want to run SLI at very high resolutions and crank settings. 780/780ti SLI and especially tri SLI can easily run games at settings that may exceed 3gb of vram. Heck at just 2560x1440, I can nearly peg my 3gb vram in spots of Thief on max settings and at 3200x1800 it will hitch in spots from running out. So just imagine running 4k or higher res surround setups.

This. You'd be 'mazed how much Vram OLD games run through emulators can suck up once you start piling on post-processing... even on one monitor at 1080p... people who talk about SLI configs for 1080p being overkill aren't using their drivers. If a game can be made to do 100fps+, I can make sure my cards are sweating and get noticeable gains on image quality for the trouble.

I'm was thinking about ditching my 2 reference 780s and going for 2 classified 6GB 780s for 1440p and putting them under water...

But nah. I'm going to wait. That's what they WANT me to do. Once I make the move to 1440, I'll see how bad I struggle with these "old" 780s.

Can someone explain why we have to accept mirrored VRAM in SLI? I mean... I paid for 6GB of VRAM already... why am I only able to use 3 :tears:
 
Last edited:
Correct. If you go retarded with super sampled anti aliasing, it increases VRAM use. AA eats more VRAM than anything else now, so if you use 8X SSAA don't be surprised to see your AA alone eat up 2GB of VRAM. 8X MSAA uses a ton of VRAM, but is manageable at single screen resolutions. SSAA, waste of VRAM and also lowers performance to unreasonable levels, since SSAA is very demanding.

If you're not crazy (using too much, in other words) with AA, you can use 2X MSAA or FXAA which has basically near zero VRAM footprint.

Now I don't know if people like stupid levels of AA or not. But 3GB is fine at anything less than 4k resolution. If you're 4k, MAYBE, but even then you can still do fine unless. Again. You go stupid with anti aliasing.
 
Correct. If you go retarded with super sampled anti aliasing, it increases VRAM use. AA eats more VRAM than anything else now, so if you use 8X SSAA don't be surprised to see your AA alone eat up 2GB of VRAM. 8X MSAA uses a ton of VRAM, but is manageable at single screen resolutions. SSAA, waste of VRAM and also lowers performance to unreasonable levels, since SSAA is very demanding.

If you're not crazy (using too much, in other words) with AA, you can use 2X MSAA or FXAA which has basically near zero VRAM footprint.

Now I don't know if people like stupid levels of AA or not. But 3GB is fine at anything less than 4k resolution. If you're 4k, MAYBE, but even then you can still do fine unless. Again. You go stupid with anti aliasing.

I use FXAA on both tiers of stacked anti-aliasing, and I wouldn't bother if it didn't look like money. Fortunately at 1080p, 3GB is enough to get it "retarded" beautiful, but I try settings that don't work because I don't have VRAM for it (even using FXAA across the board). If that's stupid, I'm a stupid tinkerer with only 1 1080p monitor enjoying myself.
 
The comment wasn't aimed at your usage so don't take it as such.That is my fault due to wording though, I really didn't intend to come across that way - I was speaking mostly of supersampled anti aliasing, such as downsampling and SGSSAA. Both methods of SSAA use a ton of GPU horsepower and unreasonable amounts of VRAM; a lot of people act surprised when they see SSAA using a lot of VRAM. Well, SSAA uses a ton of VRAM and also causes a huge performance hit. That performance hit for SSAA can range from 50 to 150% depending on what type of SSAA you use. And SSAA alone can use past 2GB at 1600p. (resolution scale in BF4 is a good example, it is OGSSAA)

So that was mostly a commentary on people using SSAA and acting surprised when a lot of VRAM is used. And i'm like, "no shit". Anyway, i'm not saying what is right or wrong here. It's all in the eye of the user - if they like SSAA, hey great. But don't be surprised at using unreasonable amounts of VRAM. It sounds like what you're doing is combining MSAA with FXAA. FXAA doesn't use VRAM, so you won't use any more VRAM than the MSAA portion alone would. I've done this and it can look pretty good in some games, although my preference is outright SGSSAA (via nvidia inspector) which looks better. But I only do this in old games, I don't use SGSSAA in newer games because at 1600p the performance hit is more than I would like.

Regardless, it's all up to the PC gamer. If they like more AA hey that's cool, ya know? I guess i'm just stating my preference on AA. I think there are a lot of misconceptions on VRAM use for AA though. We're in a situation where AA is using more VRAM than game assets once resolution goes higher and higher; this is definitely the case at 1600p and beyond if you're into 8X MSAA. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it, because 10 years ago VRAM was used by game assets. Thanks to the sad state of consoles, that isn't the case anymore. AA uses more VRAM than game assets. That, my friend, is really fucking backwards. The game assets should be using that VRAM, not anti aliasing. But it is what it is. Next gen consoles. Not so "next" gen. Quite silly to me, but whatever.
 
Last edited:
"EVGA 780 GTX super overclock mega ultra 6GB OMFGWTFBBQROFL Facebook/Twitter edition just announced from EVGA super ultra Max full transparent completely maximum Uber high end edition's edition"

Just announced.
 
Looks like Palit is joining in on the 6GB fun as well, per TPU. I wonder why other AIBs haven't mentioned anything.
 
Looks like Palit is joining in on the 6GB fun as well, per TPU. I wonder why other AIBs haven't mentioned anything.

Keep the ace up the sleeve so falsely inflated pricing/gouging can happen.
 
Back
Top