Now we move on to the triple-monitor results using three 1920x1080 FHD displays, totaling 5760x1080. Keep in mind that, from this point on, AMD's frame pacing feature does not work. The company is purportedly on the verge of releasing its Catalyst 14.1 package, but it wasn't able to preview it to us for this story, and as of this writing, the software is still not available for download.
Once it is available, you should be able to switch on frame pacing at resolutions in excess of 2560x1600 and in Eyefinity, which will affect the Radeon HD 7990 and two Radeon HD 7950s in CrossFire.
Of course, because we didn't have a version of FCAT that was compatible with Battlefield 4, the frame rates for those two Radeon-based setups are going to be optimistic. The frame time variance figures should be right, though.


We had to drop the detail preset to High in order to get these graphics solutions cranking out playable performance. Even still, some of the minimum frame rates are flirting with our 30 FPS target.
Asus' Mars 760 does really well though, holding its own against the $1000 GeForce GTX 690.


Two Radeon HD 7950s in CrossFire make this chart look particularly painful, though none of the multi-GPU setups yield appealing frame time variance results in Battlefield 4.
- 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
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