Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GTX 960 vs 780 Ti |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 960 vs 780 Ti among Desktop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 7.5 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 TiGPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 32,987 | vs | 15,630 | More than 2x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher clock speed | 1,127 MHz | vs | 875 MHz | Around 30% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 1,178 MHz | vs | 1,020 MHz | More than 15% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Significantly lower TDP | 120W | vs | 250W | 2.1x lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher memory bandwidth | 336 GB/s | vs | 112.2 GB/s | Around 3x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 8,890 | vs | 5,813 | Around 55% better PassMark score | |||
| Significantly better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 46,186 | vs | 32,171 | Around 45% better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Much higher texture rate | 210 GTexel/s | vs | 72.1 GTexel/s | Around 3x higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly better floating-point performance | 5,040 GFLOPS | vs | 2,308.1 GFLOPS | Around 2.2x better floating-point performance | |||
| Better 3DMark06 score | 15,619 | vs | 10,767.5 | More than 45% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Many more texture mapping units | 240 | vs | 64 | 176 more texture mapping units | |||
| Many more shading units | 2,880 | vs | 1,024 | 1856 more shading units | |||
| Much better ocean surface simulation score | 2,201.43 frames/s | vs | 780.9 frames/s | More than 2.8x better ocean surface simulation score | |||
| More memory | 3,072 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 50% more memory | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 52.5 GPixel/s | vs | 36.1 GPixel/s | More than 45% higher pixel rate | |||
| Much wider memory bus | 384 bit | vs | 128 bit | 3x wider memory bus | |||
| Significantly higher crysis 3 framerate | 60.3 fps | vs | 36.1 fps | More than 65% higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
| More render output processors | 48 | vs | 32 | 16 more render output processors | |||
| Significantly higher BioShock infinite framerate | 116.4 fps | vs | 75.8 fps | Around 55% higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| Better fire strike factor score | 74.6 | vs | 57.4 | Around 30% better fire strike factor score | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 4,688 | vs | 3,046 | Around 55% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Higher battlefield 4 framerate | 85.4 | vs | 58 | More than 45% higher battlefield 4 framerate | |||
Report a correction
