Solved

MSI Gtx 780 lightning VS EVGA Gtx 780 ti

Hey Guys
I am wondering if it is worth it to spend the extra $200 on the GTX 780 ti or if the GTX 780 Lightning is a better deal?

System Specs
CPU: Amd Fx-8350
GPU: Asus Gtx 660ti Direct CU2
RAM: 8GB
PSU: 750W
Nothing has been overclocked
25 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about msi gtx 780 lightning evga gtx 780
  1. Best answer
    I'd prefer to stay with what you have.
    Else change the CPU and mobo first to Intel's i5-4670K and a mobo of your choice ( preferably with the Z87 chipset )
    That FX8350 will seriously bottleneck with the GTX 780.
    Once you change the CPU , get a GTX 780 HoF from Galaxy or the AMP! 780 from Zotac. Both are at par with the GTX Titan. The 780Ti seems overkill to me if its 1080p. If your using anything over 1080p , get the GTX 780Ti , but be sure to change that CPU first , else the new GPU wont make sense. Another option you have is to SLI that 660Ti , if your mobo has a second spare PCIe 2.0/3.0 x8/x16 slot. It'll be cheaper yet be atpar if not more than the GTX 780 and if you can OC them , be close to a GTX 780Ti.
  2. 780ti dont worth extra $200 over 780. 780(non ti) is a better deal

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780_Ti/27.html
  3. if you are reading this thread for reference know that above answer is ridiculous. I have several systems and by and large an Fx 8350 works wonders with a gtx 780




    "AThe difference between an AMD 8350 and an Intel i7 3930k is only 7

    AMD price as of this post on Newegg: $199.99
    Intel price as of this post on Newegg: $569.99

    Cost difference: $370

    7 extra FPS is not worth $370" - From linus tech tips

    you can see a stock fx 8350 can easily hold its own even when only 4 cores are being utilized, as the newer consoles have cpus with 8 partitions, you are finally gonna see these multi core processors stretch their legs.

    People give Amd chips such a bad wrap, its hard to watch. There is absolutely NO reason to invest your hard earned money on an entirely new board for a chipset that has already lived its life (seeing as how fast intel loves to change their chipsets every time they release a cpu) and then shell out over $240+ dollars easy on some silicon that is going to give you equal if not worse performance. I dont know if you made your decision but you shouldnt have a single problem with a fx 8350 and gtx 780. This bottleneck business always gets blown out of proportion as if you were trying to run a thousand dollar card on a 50 dollar core duo.
  4. the galaxy hof, evga classified, and msi lightning are the best 780's out there. once you overclock the 1.25ghz+ on either one of them... your going to be quite a bit faster than a reference 780ti anyway.

    and the 8350 is fine and a solid cpu.
  5. Gwamp said:
    if you are reading this thread for reference know that above answer is ridiculous. I have several systems and by and large an Fx 8350 works wonders with a gtx 780

    "AThe difference between an AMD 8350 and an Intel i7 3930k is only 7

    AMD price as of this post on Newegg: $199.99
    Intel price as of this post on Newegg: $569.99

    Cost difference: $370

    7 extra FPS is not worth $370" - From linus tech tips

    you can see a stock fx 8350 can easily hold its own even when only 4 cores are being utilized, as the newer consoles have cpus with 8 partitions, you are finally gonna see these multi core processors stretch their legs.

    People give Amd chips such a bad wrap, its hard to watch. There is absolutely NO reason to invest your hard earned money on an entirely new board for a chipset that has already lived its life (seeing as how fast intel loves to change their chipsets every time they release a cpu) and then shell out over $240+ dollars easy on some silicon that is going to give you equal if not worse performance. I dont know if you made your decision but you shouldnt have a single problem with a fx 8350 and gtx 780. This bottleneck business always gets blown out of proportion as if you were trying to run a thousand dollar card on a 50 dollar core duo.


    Some games are worse than others. You picked one that is particularly favorable for the 8350, but there are others that are particularly bad. I do agree that he was a bit ridiculous saying how it would bottleneck it so bad, but it will in some games, and not in others.

    Example of the bad:
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5
  6. bystander said:


    Some games are worse than others. You picked one that is particularly favorable for the 8350, but there are others that are particularly bad. I do agree that he was a bit ridiculous saying how it would bottleneck it so bad, but it will in some games, and not in others.

    Example of the bad:
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5


    i was going to say the same thing but he already has an 8350 and selling it and the mobo to get an intel mobo/cpu is counter productive and not worth it... too much money. might as well ride it out and or get a noctua nh-d14 and give that 8350 a healthy overclock.
  7. Yea I picked BF4 because it is a new titlte and it utilizes the chip as it was intended. Im trying to convey its performance in next gen titles where it matters. Itd be silly to link anything that doesnt play nice with multi cores because im sure we all know the single threaded performance on a stock fx 8350 is just Mediocre and the only games that have single threads are either old or poorly coded so unless he said "I want to play old titles and thats it" BF4 benchmarks are a great standard to see cpu performance relative to newer titles and especially ports.

    Ive found that when my fx 8350 rig use only half the cores it isnt too bad because i multi task on another panel anyways so that leaves some process room which is nice haha. Maybe im biased but i got my fx 8350 for $150 so i feel it was a great deal.
  8. Yea I picked BF4 because it is a new titlte and it utilizes the chip as it was intended. Im trying to convey its performance in next gen titles where it matters. Itd be silly to link anything that doesnt play nice with multi cores because im sure we all know the single threaded performance on a stock fx 8350 is just Mediocre and the only games that have single threads are either old or poorly coded so unless he said "I want to play old titles and thats it" BF4 benchmarks are a great standard to see cpu performance relative to newer titles and especially ports.

    Ive found that when my fx 8350 rig use only half the cores it isnt too bad because i multi task on another panel anyways so that leaves some process room which is nice haha. Maybe im biased but i got my fx 8350 for $150 so i feel it was a great deal.

    Oh and solid link, Total War poops on my Fx chip, it literally uses 1 core...
  9. Yea I picked BF4 because it is a new titlte and it utilizes the chip as it was intended. Im trying to convey its performance in next gen titles where it matters. Itd be silly to link anything that doesnt play nice with multi cores because im sure we all know the single threaded performance on a stock fx 8350 is just Mediocre and the only games that have single threads are either old or poorly coded so unless he said "I want to play old titles and thats it" BF4 benchmarks are a great standard to see cpu performance relative to newer titles and especially ports.

    Ive found that when my fx 8350 rig use only half the cores it isnt too bad because i multi task on another panel anyways so that leaves some process room which is nice haha. Maybe im biased but i got my fx 8350 for $150 so i feel it was a great deal.

    Oh and solid link, Total War poops on my Fx chip, it literally uses 1 core...
  10. Gwamp said:
    Yea I picked BF4 because it is a new titlte and it utilizes the chip as it was intended. Im trying to convey its performance in next gen titles where it matters. Itd be silly to link anything that doesnt play nice with multi cores because im sure we all know the single threaded performance on a stock fx 8350 is just Mediocre and the only games that have single threads are either old or poorly coded so unless he said "I want to play old titles and thats it" BF4 benchmarks are a great standard to see cpu performance relative to newer titles and especially ports.

    Ive found that when my fx 8350 rig use only half the cores it isnt too bad because i multi task on another panel anyways so that leaves some process room which is nice haha. Maybe im biased but i got my fx 8350 for $150 so i feel it was a great deal.


    No, just no. Cutting edge next gen games may utilize multiple cores well, but most games do not. If all you play is BF4, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light and Crysis 3, you might have a point, but the vast majority of games will not take advantage of a lot of cores. Besides those 4, almost no other game uses more than 4 cores. Even then, they don't all show good results, as they still like fast CPU's in some cases.

    Granted, not every game needs a fast CPU, so it doesn't mean all games will be a problem, but you still see a lot of people coming here complaining about one game or another, when using that slow CPU.
  11. bystander said:

    No, just no. Cutting edge next gen games may utilize multiple cores well, but most games do not. If all you play is BF4, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light and Crysis 3, you might have a point, but the vast majority of games will not take advantage of a lot of cores. Besides those 4, almost no other game uses more than 4 cores.


    Ridiculous my friend, thats what they said when quad cores came out. Xbox one and Ps4 are running 8 core amd chips if you cannot see the trend then i dont know what to tell you. You list those games like there arent Millions of people playing those titles. It is completely irrelevant to say that the majority of games dont take advantage of an octo core. OBVIOUSLY, those titles were developed around cpus of their time (duos and quads).


    "Cutting edge next gen games may utilize multiple cores well, but most games do not. If all you play is BF4, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light and Crysis 3, you might have a point..." Im straight confused by your logic, Were talking about where were going not where we have been or else the op would be asking if he should buy an Hd 3850 and a core duo. No hes asking about a 780 and a 780 ti. Which titles do you think are relevant on this thread? Yea probably every single one you posted.
  12. There are a lot of other games than those 4. There is a possibility that a few games will take advantage of multiple cores, but history is not on its side. New tends take time, they don't happen over night. These new consoles just hit the shelves, it'll take a while before they change the PC industry.

    If you have one of those CPU's, I'm not saying to upgrade, but it certainly isn't going to keep pace with the upper end CPU's either. The interesting thing is when all those cores start being taken advantage of, on a consistent basis, dev's aren't likely to sit on their hands and only utilize as much as the AMD CPU's can muster, but they'll start taking advantage and use them harder. That is what dev's do.
  13. man i have no idea what your talking about or getting at haha. there are literally hundreds of post on toms from people 2-3 years ago saying dont upgrade to a quad core because games will never utilize all the cores. History will repeat, triple A funded devs will utilize what they have on hand, why would they not leverage extra cpu threads if they have the resources and time for development. your leading the discussion nowhere and just talking aloud, no one said itll change over night but you act as if were a decade away from this gradual improvement. All the aforementioned "next gen" games have been out awhile especially metro 2033 which is almost what, 4 years old?

    Lastly no one is saying to upgrade,we all agreed that it would be counter productive. its completely redundant to say this chip wont keep up with "upper end" cpus. Its in an entirely different realm of price. Would you expect a $1000+ i7 3970k to be anywhere near an at max $200 consumer multitasking chip? Ill answer for you before you write back with some other random comment with a flawed comparison to match . No you would not.
  14. Gwamp said:
    man i have no idea what your talking about or getting at haha. there are literally hundreds of post on toms from people 2-3 years ago saying dont upgrade to a quad core because games will never utilize all the cores. History will repeat, triple A funded devs will utilize what they have on hand, why would they not leverage extra cpu threads if they have the resources and time for development. your leading the discussion nowhere and just talking aloud, no one said itll change over night but you act as if were a decade away from this gradual improvement. All the aforementioned "next gen" games have been out awhile especially metro 2033 which is almost what, 4 years old?

    Lastly no one is saying to upgrade,we all agreed that it would be counter productive. its completely redundant to say this chip wont keep up with "upper end" cpus. Its in an entirely different realm of price. Would you expect a $1000+ i7 3970k to be anywhere near an at max $200 consumer multitasking chip? Ill answer for you before you write back with some other random comment with a flawed comparison to match . No you would not.


    I think you are a few years behind the times. 5 years ago, everyone recommended quad cores, and no one recommend hyperthreading. Dual cores were only for low end systems. Now people are still not quite sold on hyperthreading, but at least they aren't turning their nose up at it.

    I also consider those $1000 as the bleeding or cutting edge CPU's. There are still reasonably priced CPU's that are barely slower, such as the 4770k. In most games, they are just as fast, except those 4 I mentioned earlier: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901
    That's $289, and perfectly reasonably priced.

    You have stated that the 8350 is fast now, because all meaningful games use lots of cores and aren't bottlenecked. The problem with this, is that it is bottlenecked on a lot of games.

    You are making assumptions that all games will be like those 4 games I listed, from here on out. You can't assume that. Most games we get have been in the works for years. It takes time for changes to happen.

    The 8350 is a reasonable CPU, but probably not the CPU of choice for someone with a 780ti, but if you had one, I wouldn't let it stop you from getting a 780ti.
  15. Gwamp said:
    Lastly no one is saying to upgrade,we all agreed that it would be counter productive. its completely redundant to say this chip wont keep up with "upper end" cpus. Its in an entirely different realm of price. Would you expect a $1000+ i7 3970k to be anywhere near an at max $200 consumer multitasking chip? Ill answer for you before you write back with some other random comment with a flawed comparison to match . No you would not.


    The issue I have, is you are using a flawed comparison to state the 8350 is a great CPU. You said that all games from here on out will utilize 8 cores of the 8350. I showed that there is another side of that coin. In games that use a lot of cores, the 8350 is fine. It is not always fine, and most games do not use more than 4 cores.

    You showed the great, I though it was only fair to show the bad as well. We don't want to give "flawed" comparisons, do we? One or the other is not always true. Both happen, and it is only fair to show it.
  16. Nooot fair haha its on sale. and exactly, i agree that if you are in the high end gpu market you would not opt to compliment it with this cpu.
    all in all i just wanted to let the op know or anyone else thinking about upgrading, the fears of this particular bottleneck are over embilshed and i really needed to say something when top solution was a recommendation to cop out for a i5 3570. but even at 290 before tax thats gonna be 50% more than that fx you know sooo. BUT were talking in circles, if your buying a 800 dollar gpu i doubt you'd care for price discrepancy anyway.
  17. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ1WrQZc4wA I guess he did'nt know what 8350 is capable of..
  18. M0kujin said:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ1WrQZc4wA I guess he did'nt know what 8350 is capable of..


    Shout it from the mountain tops my friend.
  19. CommentariesAnd More said:
    I'd prefer to stay with what you have.
    Else change the CPU and mobo first to Intel's i5-4670K and a mobo of your choice ( preferably with the Z87 chipset )
    That FX8350 will seriously bottleneck with the GTX 780.
    Once you change the CPU , get a GTX 780 HoF from Galaxy or the AMP! 780 from Zotac. Both are at par with the GTX Titan. The 780Ti seems overkill to me if its 1080p. If your using anything over 1080p , get the GTX 780Ti , but be sure to change that CPU first , else the new GPU wont make sense. Another option you have is to SLI that 660Ti , if your mobo has a second spare PCIe 2.0/3.0 x8/x16 slot. It'll be cheaper yet be atpar if not more than the GTX 780 and if you can OC them , be close to a GTX 780Ti.


    would a i7 2600k bottleneck? MSI GD65 p67, 16gb ram 1866.
  20. Oh my god, ¿how is the ''Best Solution'' comment such an ignorant statement?
    No graphincs card on the word is going to botteneck with an FX 8350 AMD processor. Not one. I doubt that even the next generation of GPU's of both companies do. Read about CPU benchmarks, the 8350 and the Intel I5 4th generation are on the same tier, and its only stupid to ''upgrade'' to a CPU on the same tier than your current, because you are not going to obtain a substancial performace difference.
    I just hope you did not already waste your money, that could go to the graphics card, or a CPU water cooling AIO unit, or even a better PSU; so many things to upgrade, and that cpu is at the bottom of the priority list. You are going to be fine for the next 3-5 years with that CPU (depending on your needs) at stock speeds, and 3-7 if you overclock it.
    Good shoping!
  21. vVonder said:
    Oh my god, ¿how is the ''Best Solution'' comment such an ignorant statement?
    No graphincs card on the word is going to botteneck with an FX 8350 AMD processor. Not one. I doubt that even the next generation of GPU's of both companies do. Read about CPU benchmarks, the 8350 and the Intel I5 4th generation are on the same tier, and its only stupid to ''upgrade'' to a CPU on the same tier than your current, because you are not going to obtain a substancial performace difference.
    I just hope you did not already waste your money, that could go to the graphics card, or a CPU water cooling AIO unit, or even a better PSU; so many things to upgrade, and that cpu is at the bottom of the priority list. You are going to be fine for the next 3-5 years with that CPU (depending on your needs) at stock speeds, and 3-7 if you overclock it.
    Good shoping!

    Any reason you dredged up an old post only to post an extremely ignorant answer?

    Look at the charts on these benchmarks, and it is clear as day that that CPU can be bottlenecked by a single GPU quite easily. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

    No CPU is bottleneck free, unless you are using high enough settings to never break 40-50 FPS. It won't happen all the time, or in every game, but right now, GPU's are improving much faster than CPU's.

    Mantle has shown that they can remove many CPU bottlenecks with improved software, but unfortunately, Mantle only works on 1 game and not a lot of GPU's.
  22. Look at these charts:
    https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-3570k-vs-3770k-vs-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks
    http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2032640/4670k-versus-8350.html
    http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/benchmarks,140.html
    Im not getting matle into the equation, that would unfairly move things to the AMD's side, as for mantle you REQUIRE an AMD GPU, regardless of your CPU (which does not need to be an AMD's CPU).
    Define bottleneck? Higher end CPU's tend to show small differences in FPS in gaminc scenarios with the same GPU's, that means that they are not limiting the GPU's performance, as there is not a huge difference between 150 and 500$ CPU's.

    I did not mean to be agressive, but it shocked me that someone would recommend to spend about 350 (more or less, depending on the motherboard) in order to get about from 5 and up to 12% overall performance improvement (depending on the benchmark, possible overclock and individual CPUs); when that money could be much better spent elsewhere. The same amout of money, if applied to a GPU, could give him a performace improvement in games of about 70% (approx.).

    Will you even consider that desition? All im trying here is to give the best advise i can, and i belive you are too.
  23. vVonder said:
    Look at these charts:
    https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-3570k-vs-3770k-vs-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks
    http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2032640/4670k-versus-8350.html
    http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/benchmarks,140.html
    Im not getting matle into the equation, that would unfairly move things to the AMD's side, as for mantle you REQUIRE an AMD GPU, regardless of your CPU (which does not need to be an AMD's CPU).
    Define bottleneck? Higher end CPU's tend to show small differences in FPS in gaminc scenarios with the same GPU's, that means that they are not limiting the GPU's performance, as there is not a huge difference between 150 and 500$ CPU's.

    I did not mean to be agressive, but it shocked me that someone would recommend to spend about 350 (more or less, depending on the motherboard) in order to get about from 5 and up to 12% overall performance improvement (depending on the benchmark, possible overclock and individual CPUs); when that money could be much better spent elsewhere. The same amout of money, if applied to a GPU, could give him a performace improvement in games of about 70% (approx.).

    Will you even consider that desition? All im trying here is to give the best advise i can, and i belive you are too.


    Here is the problem. The first link you gave, definitely had higher performance on the i5, but they used too high of settings, making the GPU more of the bottleneck. Sub 30 FPS is not playable. Most PC gamers want at least 40 FPS, and none of the comparisons used playable settings. Once you let the FPS get to 40-60 FPS range, the CPU bottlenecks start showing their ugly head.

    The 2nd link is a BF4 comparison, which does pretty well in single player mode, but once you jump to multiplayer, CPU bottlenecks show their ugly head again.

    Like I said, if you push super high settings so that you are only getting FPS up to 30-40 FPS, then it won't hardly every bottleneck the CPU, but that is not how most PC gamers play. I get severe nausea if I don't get at least 50 FPS, so there is no way in hell I'd ever consider that.

    You saw the link I showed, the 8350 was severely behind the rest of the CPU's in some benchmarks, but like I said, it will depend on the game and whether you play at higher than 40 FPS.

    That said, I did say that I disagreed with the assessment of it "severely" bottlenecking the 780 ti, but no CPU goes without any, as you said.
  24. I guess it is true, to some extent, every CPU bottlenecks high end GPU's, but I doubt its substancial, atleast if its high end CPUs we are talking about.
    Yet you have to agree with me: Intel I5 4th generation is only about 10% in averange better than the AMD FX 8350 in gaming scenarios, and the guy should not spend his money in such unsubstancial upgrade, don't you think?
  25. vVonder said:
    I guess it is true, to some extent, every CPU bottlenecks high end GPU's, but I doubt its substancial, atleast if its high end CPUs we are talking about.
    Yet you have to agree with me: Intel I5 4th generation is only about 10% in averange better than the AMD FX 8350 in gaming scenarios, and the guy should not spend his money in such unsubstancial upgrade, don't you think?


    In some cases, the i5 doubles its performance, in others it doesn't make much of a difference. It's going to depend on the game, GPU, resolution and target FPS.

    An 8350 will work pretty good most the time, but if you happen to play a game that has poor threading, you may find yourself in a world of regret. I also seem to find the performance difference is much greater than 10%, but then I don't use settings at sub 60 FPS and I tend to ignore reviews that test at sub 60 FPS.
Ask a new question

Read More

Gtx EVGA Graphics