Leven JS600 1 TB SATA3 SSD review
ClockTuner for Ryzen v1.1 (CTR) Guide by 1USMUS
Colorful GeForce RTX 3080 iGAME VULCAN review
Corsair HS60 Haptic Headset review
Corsair K60 RGB Pro keyboard review
Deepcool Macube 110 chassis review
Leven JPR600 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3090 STRIX OC Review
AMD Announces Ryzen 5000 processors - preview
Corsair H100i Elite Capellix review
MSI GeForce GTX 780 Gaming OC 6 GB Graphics Card Review
Posted by: on: 06/19/2014 09:22 AM [
16 comment(s) ]
In this review we test the GeForce GTX 780 Gaming OC 6 GB graphics card from MSI, the OC edition specifically. The customized product is equipped with a massive cooler that can be air-cooled, this unit comes with a whopping 6 GB graphics memory (rather handy with Watch Dogs we admit) and a very hip looking cooler.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
msi
pages 1 2 3 4
Lane
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Senior Member
Posts: 6361
Posted on: 06/19/2014 04:06 PM
Im sorry, i dont know why you enter the review with watchdogs + high ram usage, when we look at the difference of fps between a standard 780 and this OC version + 6gb.. we find 4fps difference.
With 106mhz more on the boost clock ( min boost clock, the card certainly clock higher in turbo mode than that, on both stock and non stock version ), we could expect the difference only come from this oc.
Im sorry, i dont know why you enter the review with watchdogs + high ram usage, when we look at the difference of fps between a standard 780 and this OC version + 6gb.. we find 4fps difference.
With 106mhz more on the boost clock ( min boost clock, the card certainly clock higher in turbo mode than that, on both stock and non stock version ), we could expect the difference only come from this oc.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 16973
Senior Member
Posts: 16973
Posted on: 06/19/2014 04:38 PM
Yeah that WD difference is only because of base 954mhz vs 863mhz. My with 941mhz (boost 1084mhz) acts the same as this MSI and comparable to Titan (2688cores) performance out of the box.
Imo there won't be any vram usage difference, HH used High Textures there if Im not mistaken
Yeah that WD difference is only because of base 954mhz vs 863mhz. My with 941mhz (boost 1084mhz) acts the same as this MSI and comparable to Titan (2688cores) performance out of the box.
Imo there won't be any vram usage difference, HH used High Textures there if Im not mistaken
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7392
Senior Member
Posts: 7392
Posted on: 06/19/2014 05:16 PM
Nice card, but too late in the game for me... no point in getting this when 880/AMD equivalent will come out in 6 months tops and will most likely also have a big vram capacity and of course a performance bump (remains to be seen how big that will be).
Nice card, but too late in the game for me... no point in getting this when 880/AMD equivalent will come out in 6 months tops and will most likely also have a big vram capacity and of course a performance bump (remains to be seen how big that will be).
ruiner13
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Posted on: 06/19/2014 05:18 PM
I was somewhat expecting a test of WD at ultra resolution at least to see how the extra VRAM helps. Why only high setting that is meant for VRAM <= 2GB? Or at least do some 4K tests... 1440p is nice but 6GB is meant for 4K with current games.
I was somewhat expecting a test of WD at ultra resolution at least to see how the extra VRAM helps. Why only high setting that is meant for VRAM <= 2GB? Or at least do some 4K tests... 1440p is nice but 6GB is meant for 4K with current games.
pages 1 2 3 4
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 658
Love thermal imaging - great job!