Results: Far Cry 3
For the first time, we see GeForce GTX 660 Ti’s higher CUDA core count trump the 760’s memory bandwidth advantage.
GeForce GTX 760 manages to maintain more than 40 FPS throughout our manual benchmark run, while the 660 Ti never drops under 45 FPS. In comparison, Radeon HD 7950 with Boost, GeForce GTX 660, and Radeon HD 7950 all dip below 40.
We’re back to very small differences in the time it takes to render consecutive frames.
Current page: Results: Far Cry 3Prev Page Results: Crysis 3 Next Page Results: Metro: Last Light
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Damn I love nVidiaReply
This doesn't look faster than the 7950 boost to me. Maybe you should check your scores and update your conclusion to reflect reality?Reply
it isnt supposed to be faster than the 7950. they are about the sameReply
11035777 said:This doesn't look faster than the 7950 boost to me. Maybe you should check your scores and update your conclusion to reflect reality?
Re-read the conclusion in question below. He doesn't say it is faster, he says this card will replace Don's recommendation for best $250 card and displace the 7950 Boost. ie. Don won't be recommending a $300 card that trades blows or barely beats a $250 card. If both were to end up $250, things change.
quote - "A quick reference to Best Graphics Cards For The Money: June 2013 shows that Don is currently recommending the Tahiti-based Radeon HD 7870 for $250. With almost certainty, the GeForce GTX 760 will take that honor next month, displacing the Radeon HD 7950 with Boost at $300 in the process."
Chris, what is it about the GTX 580 that makes it so slow for the CUDA FluidmarkReply
test, given it does so well for the other CUDA tests, especially iRay and Blender?
Btw, I don't suppose you could include 580 SLI results for the game tests? ;)
Or do you have just the one 580?
My only gripe with the 760 is the misuse of a model number which allows one to
infer it should be quicker than older cards with 'lesser' names (660, etc.) when
infact it's often slower. I really wish NVIDIA would stop releasing products that
exhibit such enormous performance overlap. Given the evolutionary nature of
GPUs, and the time that has passed since the 600s launched, one might
reasonably expect a 760 to beat the 670 too, but it never does. To me, the
price drop is the only thing it has going for it. The endless meddling with shader
numbers, clocks, bus width, etc., creates an utter muddle of performance
response depending on the game. One really has to judge based on the
individual game rather than any general product description or spec summary.
I just hope Skyrim players with 660s don't upgrade on the assumption newer
model names mean better performance, but I expect some will.
GTX760 is an upgrade for GTX460/560 user and of all of that u didnt throw in those cards to bench with. Seriously?Reply
Nice review as per usual Chris.Reply
Amazing performance at 250$. The 265bit memory interface does wonders for GK104.
Now I am wondering if there will even be a GTX760ti, while there is a large enough gap in the product stack, I have a feeling there is a chance there may not be a "ti" version.
Anyone know more?
AMD will have to release a new interim Radeon series, the existing family is not to outdated to be stretched to much longer.Reply
For those of us who fold it ain't no show stopper is it? :lol:Reply
So, maybe there will be an GTX 760 ti, for about 300 bucks with the peformance of a GTX 670... Uh? nVidia really should. This remembers the gtx 400 series and 500 series... nVidia is doing it all over again.Reply