NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Review: The New Enthusiast Kepler
by Ryan Smith on June 25, 2013 9:00 AM ESTTotal War 2: Shogun
Our next benchmark is Shogun 2, which is a continuing favorite to our benchmark suite. Total War: Shogun 2 is the latest installment of the long-running Total War series of turn based strategy games, and alongside Civilization V is notable for just how many units it can put on a screen at once. Even 2 years after its release it’s still a very punishing game at its highest settings due to the amount of shading and memory those units require.
Moving on to Shogun, we have our first title where the GTX 760 can beat the 7950B. The difference here is about 7%, which is going to be about average for the difference between the two cards. Meanwhile this is also a good example of where the GTX 760 will perform relative to the GTX 660 Ti and GTX 670 in most cases. The GTX 760 ends up coming very close to the GTX 670, leaving the GTX 660 Ti behind by 6%.
Meanwhile looking at our past cards, this is also a fairly typical case for the performance of the GTX 760 over that of the GTX 560 Ti and GTX 460. GTX 760 isn’t going to double GTX 560 Ti’s performance here, but it’s otherwise large enough that it reaches the magnitude we’d expect for a generational leap. In the case of Shogun that’s a 77% performance advantage, while the GTX 760 eclipses the GTX 460 1GB by 138%. In NVIDIA’s product cycle the GTX 760 is the closest replacement for these two cards for buyers in 2-3 year replacement cycles, and it shows.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
JlHADJOE - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
The GTX670 still looks like a better configuration. Having two disabled SMs and trying to make up the performance difference with clock speed means the 760 is slightly slower than the 670, all the while using more power. There's likely less performance to be gained from overclocking too.I can only guess that they are heavily binning GK104s and every good chip is going into the 770, and with the product line being cut down the 760 has to accept all the rejects so its spec calls for up to two non-functional SMs.
intercede007 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
EVGA lists a 4GB part (04G-P4-2766-KR) and an overclocked 4GB part (04G-P4-2768-KR ). The review only covers the reference 2GB design.Is there any reason to think the additional 2GB of memory at the same clock rate as a 2GB part will be worth the additional cost? The price difference appears to be $40.
monkeydude66 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
Thank you so much for including GTX 460, 560 Ti in the review! Anandtech delivers once again. I find it absolutely ridiculous when major GPU Review sites only compare new GPUs to the last generation or completely unrelated GPUs unworthy of comparing to to a mainstream card. Good work.mapesdhs - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
I'll probably get a 700 series card next month, in which case I'll start adding data to my
site, which already has a lot of 460 info. Do you have a 460? (or two?) If so, which models?
Ian.
monkeydude66 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
Yeah, I have the Gigabyte GV-N460OC-1GI with 1GB. Planing to upgrade to GTX760 after seeing the +100% performance change.mapesdhs - Monday, July 1, 2013 - link
So is your 460 the version that has a 715MHz core clock? In that case yes indeed, the 760
should give you a major performance bump. Btw, what CPU/mbd do you have? CPU needs
to be reasonably decent to feed something like a 760.
Ian.
SilverBack - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
Ryan the GTX 760 4 gb is out can we get a comparison?slickr - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
Too expensive for me, $250 is still quite a lot, especially since the GTX 460 1GB was $200, then the GTX 560 was $200.I'm going to wait for competition from AMD and see if they offer better value for money.
rs2 - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link
How did the 660Ti score so highly on the Crysis 3 benchmark @ 2560x1440? Seems like an invalid result?Ryan Smith - Thursday, June 27, 2013 - link
Good catch. That was a data entry error; that was supposed to be 34, not 44. It has been corrected. Thanks.