Ntrain96
Unfortunately that's just how things are..............price drops when new products come out to replace them are common and take place every year multiple times.

If you bought a Ford Mustang last year wouldn't you expect the newer model (1 year later) to be better, maybe even a bit faster, with more features and be more responsive?

ty_ger07

inpxfx
im in the same boat newegg has my card for around $500 and some change down from $730 a few months back. Really does feel like a kick in the throat. Blame nvidia for being like Microsoft and keeping features exclusive to one series. Hopefully evga will drop the price on the backplates for the 780ti and nvidia gives us some of the features from the 900 series like DSR. At least we are the lucky few who could afford these there are still people with 400 500 and 600 series just imagine how left behind they feel each time something new comes out.

I don't feel left behind. I still have two GTX 580s with water cooling and don't feel like I need anything more presently.

Yup, I'm just on a single GTX 680 SC here with a measly 2 GB of VRAM (how can I show my face in public, I know). I bought it just after release for $529, including the back plate. Still playing all of my games with great frame rates at 1080p. I may buy a second one used if it's cheap enough, or I may wait for whatever comes after the 900 series.

I bought two 780ti's about a month ago , no regrets here 

Guys this is all because of bad console porting to the PC, the new consoles have 8GB of DDR3/5 unified system memory, the game makers are not changing the code from the console version to the PC version causing the games to try and use up to 6 GB of VRam like it does with the consoles. No way do they need that much its just another crappy coded port!
 
This might also be kinda like what they did in Watchdogs down grading the image quality, if you cant ruin the game on Ultra you should not be able to see any real difference in the Console and PC versions.

Only situation when I felt bad was when I hit Elpida memory and when NVIDIA launched unlocked card for same money and leave us with cards where need more performance as good option in one short moment before NVIDIA figure out that need more and for gaming and for competition with AMD and start to sell full GK110 for same money. Only that. Anything after that I didn't feel bad, even if they launched GTX780Ti with 6GB.
And I look in future only to avoid crippled card. If full unlocked card from NVIDIA is too expensive I must miss that series but crippled card never.
Example GM210 4GB crippled 700$ and full unlocked GM210 8GB 1100$ I must miss hole series. I love GTX780Ti Classified even with 3GB. 
Special K|NGP|N Edition because on fabric clock is faster than any GTX780Ti.

This is a trend - and it does make sense but also pisses me off big time - because there are *NO* sub $1,000 cards with that much ram available any more.  
 
Only the top-end most expensive cards available now have enough vRAM to even load the best graphics.  Buying 2-4 cards means nothing if they don't have enough vRAM to load the best package on *EACH* card.
 
There are several games coming out across the next few months wanting 4GB or more to load the best graphics so this *IS* a trend that will continue.
 
Why does it make sense?
 
3 places a game can load textures, shaders, particle effects, etc. from.
 
1) Disk -- spool up as needed from disk.  Heavy I/O hit, slows rendering and performance (SSD is just faster, you still take a bigger hit than elsewhere).
2) System RAM -- still needs to transfer the stuff to the video card to work it.  Much faster than disk I/O, still a slowed reaction - stuttering & slowed "zoning".
3) vRAM - directly at the GPU so it can work with the material - fastest possible location.
 
Previous generations would spool up the stuff as needed - zone and it loads new pallet of stuff, etc.  Slows running of the game when textures and such are bigger and more complex.
 
Now they want enough vRAM on the card to load a preset package of graphics and effects, right to the card -- thus enabling faster processing/rendering of higher quality being as it doesn't have to wait for textures and such to come over from other parts of the system.
 
1080p, 1440, 4k... this means little.  This is a package that needs to load local to a GPU.  If there isn't room for that quality, it will load a lower quality package.  If there is room it'll load the effects & looks to then be rendered by the GPU and that is where your SLI comes into play - pushing it to the output (1+ monitors).  Oh and SLI won't fix this problem.  2 3GB cards are 3GB per GPU -- not enough room for each GPU to load the package of stuff it needs to render.  As such it will send them a lower-end package instead.
 
No matter how powerful the GPU is you aren't seeing the best a game has to offer UNLESS you have that much vRAM -- for many this is little different than claiming "I get 300 FPS using lowest settings!  Ain't I got a kickn' system!!!" - not quite in many gamer's minds.
 
The kind of funny side - someone with a single 6GB card (iirc the older 600 series had a model or 2 with 6GB on it) will get better looking games than someone with a quad SLI system using cards with less vRAM than needed - simply because those systems will load up the best looking packages.  The higher end GPU's will get faster FPS rates but of lower quality.
 
The downside as a gamer:  
 
We've been mislead by those we trusted as "experts" on cards and vRAM.  "you don't need more than ...  because it won't render faster".  Correct!  Rendering is from the GPU.  INCORRECT when it's a package that needs a fixed amount of space for it to fit on a card *AS* a package.
 
I'm hacked off right now being as even the 780 generic series *NO LONGER SELLS A 6GB VERSION*.  Only the Titan Black on up ($1,000 - $3,500 cards) carry that much vRAM.  I don't know if this is a "stick it to the gamers" stunt by card manufacturers, NVidia or simply because gamers who buy higher end cards paid way too much attention to the "don't/won't need that much vRAM" experts.
 
I went shopping for 6GB cards.  Everyone's pulled them off the market - not available, not in stock, not expected to be back in stock, etc.  Only the really expensive cards carry that much vRAM.
 
Not here - not from other manufacturers either.  You just can't get a card under $1,000 that will load those packages -- PER CARD.  That's going to tick off a lot of other gamers, especially those who just bought newer video systems that are already going "second string" due to this packaging stuff.

I remember recent times we could only dream of buying GTX780Ti for so little money.
nVidia ripped his own customers severely off with this series.

I'm really tempted to pull the trigger on another 780 ti. I mean come on......$430.

This isn't Nvidia's fault, it's game developers cutting corners.

Question so when I play shadow of mordor, I get sudden FPS drop and then it shoots back up is it because the GPU is bottlenecking? I dont have that ultraHD texture pack installed just running the highest settings it came from factory also the Nvidia Experience center auto tunned it and it still does this wouldnt it make sense that the software know I dont have enough VRAM and lower the graphics settings if this is the case? FYI in Battlefield 4 I dont have this problem and all settings are maxed out.
 
I have 780 Classified 3GB , 4690k and 16GB or RAM.

Wow it is maxed out... kinda disappointed this is already using all the VRAM, battlefield gets around 2-2.3GB of VRAM. I got this card two months ago, fudge my life. The card seems to be maxing out. I lowered the shadow quality to high and it seems to have helped a bit, not getting the stuttering in FPS i was getting. Thanks appreciate the feedback.

I said this on the last vram thread that went on forever without solving anything.... VRAM is going to be an issue for the latest games.  Like it or not.  Blame it on "bad ports" or crappy coding or whatever.  Doesn't matter.  The trend is that games are coming out regularly now with higher vram requirements.  Sure, you can just turn down the game settings for your "top of the line" GPU, but if you want all the eye candy you will need the vram...period.  In the last thread I said there would be at least 3 titles coming out before the end of this year that wanted 4-6GB vram for max textures.  One more title is coming before Christmas. It's already here in my office in beta.  4GB required for max quality.

Oh cmon think back to Doom3, you needed 512mb to run Ultra textures on it. I don't remember a big outcry about my 6800 Ultra is out of date.

Seems to me that the vram req in mordor is just hot air to make people talk about it (either that or programmers lazyitus)
 
http://www.kitguru.net/ga...esting-1080p-1440p-4k/
 
long story short this quote from the 3rd page of the linked page
 
"Judging from our testing, its safe to say that you can ignore that 6GB ‘requirement’ for Ultra textures at sub 4K resolutions, the game is perfectly playable with a 3GB GPU."

Hillguy
Something does not add up here ... if the game will require 6 gigs @ 1080p then what will it require at 1440 or 4k ?? 10 gigs ?   I don't get it

and this guys post
 

Dwarfy
Seems to me that the vram req in mordor is just hot air to make people talk about it (either that or programmers lazyitus)
 
http://www.kitguru.net/ga...esting-1080p-1440p-4k/
 
long story short this quote from the 3rd page of the linked page
 
"Judging from our testing, its safe to say that you can ignore that 6GB ‘requirement’ for Ultra textures at sub 4K resolutions, the game is perfectly playable with a 3GB GPU."

its called uncompressed textures, with the DPI still up, higher resolution textures in terms of the size of the map, so the textures are holding more detail.... not only does the gpu have to have ram to load all of those mega big textures of really high quality, but it now must hold the info and have memory for all the other eye candy thus they put 6gb for the top setting at 1080p for the Shadow of Mordor. use gimp or photoshop, now take an image that has never been compressed by any application, or get your hands on a floating data image, now take that image and set the dpi down to say 72 dpi and use a compressed format like say jpg or even NVidia's DDS tell me if it looks as good as the original floating image, it does not. That is why that game needs so much vram, they are stepping it up, and giving you the highest quality texture file possible for your gaming experience. People wanted it, so they gave it.... the result a stunning looking game that is not using crazy procedurals, like say the original crisis that are very cpu driven, they are giving you the highest quality texture file they possibly can without any wizardry that could possibly degrade the quality of textures for pc gamers. You cannot magically add pixels/dpi to a pure texture file unless its a procedural and its using mathematical wizardry and cpu power to add DPI to the texture so it is calculated wherever your at. An actual texture file, you can always take away, but never add to unless your willing to redo it from scratch and replicate it....
 
OP is the 780 TI outdated? Yes, but its far from useless.... the 980 is only about 10% faster and in many games not even that, it has one advantage one more gb of vram, is it going to make or break your gaming experience? ummm no, and the tiny jump of the GTX 980 in its performance, your still going to get a good 2-3 years out of your card.