As with BioShock, Grid 2 is a good-looking game that does tend to exacerbate processor and memory bottlenecks, but typically doesn't tax a graphics subsystem very hard. As a result, frame rates in this one tend to be pretty high, even with 8x MSAA and soft ambient occlusion enabled.


Even at the most demanding settings we can muster, a pair of Radeon HD 7950 cards in CrossFire is the only configuration that shows up under 60 FPS. All of the other setups sustain higher minimums and don't even show up when we chart frame rate over time.


The game facilitates low frame time variance numbers across the board, except for a few rare spikes. The Radeon HD 7950s post less attractive results, but aren't problematic.
Previous
Next
Summary
- Two GK104s On A Card For $650
- The Mars 760 Bundle And Software
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Results: Battlefield 4, 2560x1440
- Results: Assassin's Creed IV, 2560x1440
- Results: Metro: Last Light, 2560x1440
- Results: BioShock Infinite, 2560x1440
- Results: Grid 2, 2560x1440
- Results: Battlefield 4, 5760x1080
- Results: Assassin's Creed IV, 5760x1080
- Results: Metro: Last Light, 5760x1080
- Results: BioShock Infinite, 5760x1080
- Results: Grid 2, 5760x1080
- Overclocking
- Power, Temperature, And Noise Benchmarks
- Asus Mars 760: We Dig The Innovation, But There Are Smarter High-End Buys
Ask a Category Expert
That's why we included an OC'd titan to represent 780 Ti performance.
Read the article. The memory was clocked identical to 780 Ti, and the core overclock was even calculated to simulate it as closely as possible.
It's a valid representation. I see some of you don't agree and you certainly reserve the right to do that, but I'm quite satisfied with the results.
780 is not the same price point. The 780 Ti is, and we overclocked a Titan to simulate as per above.
Really?
780 is not the same price point. The 780 Ti is, and we overclocked a Titan to simulate as per above.
Thanks, I stand corrected, and the 770, 780, and 780ti is what I would like to see compared to the Mars.
My qualm with using a Titan for comparison is 1) The titan costs $300 more than the 780ti, and 2) The titan is slower.
I usually read these type of articles from a perspective of "if I was going to purchase this Mars 760 or a comparitive other card at the $700 price point, what would I buy?"
So I wouldn't buy a Titan for 300$ more and overclock it to try to get 780ti performance out of it. I would want to see how a 780ti overclocked compares to an overclocked Mars 760 - then make a choice from that.
But, from strictly a performance consideration, I understand where you are coming from.
Those of us who don't get the Nvidia sample cards to play with have to consider the price/performance factor
My qualm with using a Titan for comparison is 1) The titan costs $300 more than the 780ti, and 2) The titan is slower.
The point is, is overclocked to *match* the 780 Ti.
We tested it at stock, ***and then again overclocked to represent the 780 Ti***.
It goes over this in detail in the article. Check the test system page
You are paying for the complexities of sticking two GPU's and the SLi bridge on one card together with the larger HSF this requires, it shouldn't be that difficult to work that out surely?
Plus stability is always worst on dual GPU card
Not my thing