GeForce GTX 780 Ti vs. Radeon R9 290X 4K Gaming

It's time to take the GeForce GTX 780 Ti and Radeon R9 290X and see what kind of gameplay experience we can get on an Ultra HD 4K display. We saw AMD very much outpace NVIDIA at these 4K Ultra HD resolutions previously. We will find out which one dominates the super-high-resolution gaming scene.

continued...

Summary

In this evaluation we have looked at the new GeForce GTX 780 Ti for $699 against the AMD Radeon R9 290X for $549 at Ultra HD 4K display gaming. In our original evaluation of R9 290X, we found that it dominated gaming at Ultra HD 4K display gaming against the GTX 780 and GTX TITAN. The new GeForce GTX 780 Ti changes this.

In our evaluation today we have found out that the new GeForce GTX 780 Ti equalizes the gameplay experience with Radeon R9 290X at Ultra HD 4K display gaming. In most of our games we were able to play at the same gameplay settings on both cards. There were a couple though that were different. In Far Cry 3 the Radeon R9 290X had a clear advantage that allowed us to play at a higher setting compared to the GTX 780 Ti. In Metro: Last Light though we could enable PhysX due to the support on NVIDIA GPUs. If the R9 290X could support this, it certainly had the performance to pull it off.

For the most part, performance was similar between the two video cards. There were a couple cases where the 780 Ti was small percentages faster, and a couple where the R9 290X were small percentages faster. On the whole, both cards are so similar to each other at Ultra HD 4K gaming that it would be impossible to discern between these while gaming on a 4K display. On both cards we had to make image quality sacrifices. Neither are fast enough to max the games out at that resolution. SLI and CrossFire is needed to get the most out of 4K gaming. Even these fast single-GPU video cards cannot pull off high game settings.

GTX 780 Ti 3GB versus R9 290X 4GB

In all of our testing today, we tried to look for the differences between 3GB and 4GB of VRAM while gaming. We encountered no scenarios in these games where the 3GB of VRAM on the GTX 780 Ti was holding it back at Ultra HD 4K gaming. We also encountered no scenarios where the 4GB was an advantage on the R9 290X.

The reason why we aren't seeing the difference between VRAM capacity right now is because these cards aren't fast enough to exploit the kind of game settings that would push the limits of VRAM. At this resolution these just aren't fast enough to exploit the highest in-game settings, and high levels of AA.

We think the difference in VRAM capacity isn't going to show itself until you are running SLI and CrossFire plus you need to be running the right game that loads up the VRAM. Right now, that is few and far between in the games that demand such a large VRAM capacity. BF4 is one game that may show a difference, and we have lots planned for BF4 testing in the future.


R9 290X Quiet Mode versus Uber Mode Testing

We need to make a statement about how we are going to continue to test Radeon R9 290X in reviews. This topic is born out of user feedback questioning what mode we are going to run R9 290X cards in, and why we made that choice in past reviews, and this. This is also a current hot topic among review websites as to what to mode to test the R9 290X in reviews by default given the two performance modes available.

When using the reference Radeon R9 290X video card in all reviews, we will test in "Uber Mode" by default. There are several reasons as to why. Firstly, we can do this because Uber Mode is an official performance mode supported by AMD and built into every retail R9 290X. It is not factory overclocking, rather, it is a performance mode fully supported and warranty by AMD. Second, it is easily obtained by users flipping a switch on the card, that anyone and everyone who owns an R9 290X has the option to enable. Third, we do not want to "artificially" hold back the performance of a video card. If we do so, what are we showing really? We want the potential performance to come through.

We have chosen to test in Uber Mode because that is what is relevant to enthusiasts and gamers who buy this high-end $549 video card. If you are spending that much money on a video card, you don't want to hold it back and not get your money's worth.

If we were to test in "Quiet Mode" by default, all we would be doing is setting our performance review standard by sound rather than the potential performance of the GPU. We are all about testing video cards for gaming performance and the gaming experience delivered. We don't set the bar by sound. If we did that, we'd have to ensure that every video card we reviewed ran at the same decibels while testing its performance. That is just ridiculous. HardOCP will remain giving enthusiasts the performance testing they desire.


The Bottom Line

As we have noted several times now, the Radeon R9 290X dominated the GTX 780 and GTX TITAN in Ultra HD 4K display gaming. The new GeForce GTX 780 Ti changes this ownage, and gives AMD competition at Ultra HD 4K resolution. The GeForce GTX 780 Ti gives you exactly the same gameplay experience as the Radeon R9 290X at Ultra HD 4K display gaming.

The statement above is very important. Though the AMD Radeon R9 290X now has competition at Ultra HD 4K display gaming, it isn't being "owned" by the GTX 780 Ti. The GTX 780 Ti, at $150 more, only equals the R9 290X. Both video cards are even, or on par with each other at Ultra HD 4K gaming.

The fact is that the Radeon R9 290X is delivering the same performance once again for a $150 savings. It takes the competition a $150 more expensive video card just to perform on par with the Radeon R9 290X. This reinforces our conclusion once again that the Radeon R9 290X is an incredible value right now. You really do get a lot of performance for your money.

The GeForce GTX 780 Ti has helped NVIDIA match the Radeon R9 290X in performance at Ultra HD 4K display gaming. However, AMD is doing it for $150 less. The only benefits the GTX 780 Ti holds over the reference R9 290X at this point, is that it is quieter and produces less heat. It's hard to justify the sound profile as being worth a $150 price premium.

Discussion