second gtx 770 or ???

[TehDanas13]

Whats up fellas and ladies, just got a simple question before I go out and purchase. Right now Im running a 3770k on an asus sabertooth mobo and a single gtx 770.I am about to grab a second 770 but I keep thinking about spending the extra money on a 780 ti or maybe move to a 290x if I can find one. I seen benchmarks, two 770s are awesome in terms of fps vs a single 780 ti or Titan and you end up spending less as well. Anyhow, need some opinion. Would you grab a second 770 especially with the price drop or should I get somethin else OR even wait for Maxwell??

[TheSLSAMG]

Second GTX 770. You already have the one, why not get a second?

[helping]

Stall for Maxwell

if it's not that much of an improvement then go for a second 770.

I assume you mean a 4gb 770.

[CoolBeans]

Second 770

[Faa]

I won't. 770's in SLI would be most likely used for max settings and hitting a vram cap isn't far away with them. That bus speed can't handle anything more than 2GB so it's pretty much pointless to go SLI with them. Rather save up for Maxwell imo.

[helping]

That bus speed can't handle anything more than 2GB

Holy fk can you guys stop spewing this stupid nonsense

No offense, I'm just getting annoyed of seeing the same misinformation repeated everywhere

[needmorewood]

maxwell is coming soon hang in there bud. a second 770 might be better right now but u should wait

[TehDanas13]

Im not planning on running multiple monitors so the memory really isnt a big issue. The benchmarks Im seeing show a significant increase in fps over a Titan and a decent increase over a 780. With 2 770s I can run a 4k setup, so say I dont get a second 770 and wait for maxwell, will the EQUIVILANT in price get me a 4k capable card? Im not so sure I can even assume it MAY. For $350 right now I could be set for a stable 4k experience and max out 1080p with the two 770s. When Maxwell hits, wouldnt it be safe to say I would have to spend at least $700 or more for something similar? Assuming Nvidia keeps with their normal pricing.

[helping]

 wouldnt it be safe to say I would have to spend at least $700 or more for something similar? Assuming Nvidia keeps with their normal pricing.

Yes. If you're going to spin it like that then the 770 SLI isn't too bad of an option under the assumption you have 4gb SKU

[TehDanas13]

Currently I dont have a 4gb card, Im usin the evga 770 SC w/ACX cooling. So you would say dont do it with two 2gb cards?

[Faa]

Holy fk can you guys stop spewing this stupid nonsense

No offense, I'm just getting annoyed of seeing the same misinformation repeated everywhere

Provide a source that you're right or you're just wrong. You just monitored your GPU's vram a bit and seen it passed 2GB a few times that convinced you. Lots of that vram were just cached resources that doesn't bring any performance. Giving you an example I'm seeing average vram usages around 2.3GB in BF4@ultra with my 780 so a 670 2GB isn't enough, right? Wrong, if you hit your vram limit then it's just pretty 1 fps & taking ages to spawn which isn't the case with a 670 2GB in BF4 at ultra.

Another thing besides the slow bus speed, when 3GB or 4GB is even being used lets say by non cached resources the core won't keep up anymore so it's pretty much a waste.

[helping]

Provide a source that you're right or you're just wrong. You just monitored your GPU's vram a bit and seen it passed 2GB a few times that convinced you. Lots of that vram were just cached resources that doesn't bring any performance. Giving you an example I'm seeing average vram usages around 2.3GB in BF4@ultra with my 780 so a 670 2GB isn't enough, right? Wrong, if you hit your vram limit then it's just pretty 1 fps & taking ages to spawn which isn't the case with a 670 2GB in BF4 at ultra.

Another thing besides the slow bus speed, when 3GB or 4GB is even being used lets say by non cached resources the core won't keep up anymore so it's pretty much a waste.

I don't need to, and I don't have the time to run petty tests to prove my point or not. You can take my word or leave it at that my argument is based on collective information from the same damned conversation with the same people claiming 4gb VRAM is worthless. But I will present you with one thing:

 

 

Ta-da

Between you and me, if you think about it long and hard enough between the lines, I don't think I need to say much more, but i will anyway. 

 

 

 

Getting a card that barely scrapes by and expecting it to last for more than a year is terrible policy. Look where that got people that thought "1.5gb is enough." The GTX 580 is a great card and would be pretty competitive by modern standards, however most are held back by VRAM limitations. Sure, it has a bigger bus, but it absolutely chokes when you get near that VRAM limit. And no, you do see a performance difference especially in higher resolutions, like what the OP plans on doing. Even then, the 770 isn't the most appropriate but I'm not making the decision for him, I'm just here to help. 

 

Furthermore, with two 770's, you have enough power to take advantage of more VRAM. The limitations of the bus are how much can be passed through at given moment X. More cache is better, the less the card is forced to request textures and data from the hard drive or RAM the better. I don't know what you're talking about with bus speed, I assume you meant bus width. That limits it to 2GB of immediate accessible RAM, the excess of that provides for less seeking, loading, and unloading. The 770 can use up to 3.2gb of the 4GB it comes with. The 4GB variant 770 should be used if you plan on SLI. If not, the two extra GB becomes less useful as the raw power to bother to use that is not there in many cases. 

 

It might not make much a difference today, but it will matter in two years, possibly less. This is amplified in SLI.

[Akolyte]

I would stay away from SLI as much as you can right now.  Its the start of the new year and AMD, Nvidia are releasing new and amazing things, see what they have to offer for the price.   

[TehDanas13]

I can see a 2gb sli setup being a bas choice for 4k, but what about for standard 1080p gaming at high to ultra settings? Two 2gb 770s should do more than fine on those terms, no? I dont need ultra settings, Im simply looking for high settings with a smooth above average fps. Example, I get pretty much 50-60fps on bf4 on high. It may dip to 40 under stressful moments. With a second 770 its fair to say I would be getting 60-80+ fps on higj settings with a higher DIPPED fps. And the $300 really isnt somethint thats gonna hurt me, which is why im considering it. I was under the impression that the VRAmwasnt TOO much of a big deal if only on ONE didplay

[TehDanas13]

Well i dont really se myself waiting for new cards to hit, O could try and probably fail especially witj the gossip being maxwell@ quarter 2. I can worry about spending $700+ when maxwell hits, but if I have a handy $300 sittin around, i kinda feel it wouldnt be a bad dexision to go for it. My brain is being very fickle though ans probably just being a stubborn bastard wanting more more more. The announcement of haswepp-e 6 and 8 core chips also gave me kinda giddy for NO reason, my 3770k will be fine for a while

[TehDanas13]

Ignore the errors, typing on phone from work. And thanks for all the responses.

[helping]

I can see a 2gb sli setup being a bas choice for 4k, but what about for standard 1080p gaming at high to ultra settings? Two 2gb 770s should do more than fine on those terms, no? I dont need ultra settings, Im simply looking for high settings with a smooth above average fps. Example, I get pretty much 50-60fps on bf4 on high. It may dip to 40 under stressful moments. With a second 770 its fair to say I would be getting 60-80+ fps on higj settings with a higher DIPPED fps. And the $300 really isnt somethint thats gonna hurt me, which is why im considering it. I was under the impression that the VRAmwasnt TOO much of a big deal if only on ONE didplay

Yes they should be fine, but nobody knows how soon 1080p games will require more than 2GB of RAM, and with disproportional power to RAM I wouldn't recommend a 2gb 770 SLI setup. 

 

If you must, just sell the card and buy a different one, but the 770 should be more than fine for modern 1080p. 

[Faa]

I don't need to, and I don't have the time to run petty tests to prove my point or not. You can take my word or leave it at that my argument is based on collective information from the same damned conversation with the same people claiming 4gb VRAM is worthless. But I will present you with one thing:

 

 

Ta-da

 

Between you and me, if you think about it long and hard enough between the lines, I don't think I need to say much more, but i will anyway. 

 

 

 

Getting a card that barely scrapes by and expecting it to last for more than a year is terrible policy. Look where that got people that thought "1.5gb is enough." The GTX 580 is a great card and would be pretty competitive by modern standards, however most are held back by VRAM limitations. Sure, it has a bigger bus, but it absolutely chokes when you get near that VRAM limit. And no, you do see a performance difference especially in higher resolutions, like what the OP plans on doing. Even then, the 770 isn't the most appropriate but I'm not making the decision for him, I'm just here to help. 

 

Furthermore, with two 770's, you have enough power to take advantage of more VRAM. The limitations of the bus are how much can be passed through at given moment X. More cache is better, the less the card is forced to request textures and data from the hard drive or RAM the better. I don't know what you're talking about with bus speed, I assume you meant bus width. That limits it to 2GB of immediate accessible RAM, the excess of that provides for less seeking, loading, and unloading. The 770 can use up to 3.2gb of the 4GB it comes with. The 4GB variant 770 should be used if you plan on SLI. If not, the two extra GB becomes less useful as the raw power to bother to use that is not there in many cases. 

 

It might not make much a difference today, but it will matter in two years, possibly less. This is amplified in SLI.

No with two/three 770's and ridiculous amount of VRAM won't play smooth. 120ms frame rendering times is complety unacceptable Crysis 3 ultra 3x1080p -> 

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4632/13/geforce-gtx-700-series-sli-review-geforce-gtx-760770780-in-sli-and-3-way-sli-crysis-3---5760x1080-+-frametimes

Now I proved that a 770 is a waste with high vram loads because of the bus not allowing the GPU storing fast enough data on the memory chips and being complety unplayable you were wrong. A GPU when its not hitting its vram limit doesnt load any data from the hard drive so your more cache theory is just misinformation. Prove: BF4 caches a lot of vram exceeding 2GB on 4GB cards but we see 4GB cards slightly underperforming than 2GB cards.

"4GB variants should be used on SLI" you're just spraying misinformation there again. Reasons why it's a waste 1. Mem bus isn't fast enough to take advantage of such high vram usages 2. At such vram loads you'll have awful frames anyways 3. Frame rendering times are way too high with high vram usages. 

Funny part is that you are assocating the core limitation with the vram limitation which is two different things.

 

[helping]

No with two/three 770's and ridiculous amount of VRAM won't play smooth. 120ms frame rendering times is complety unacceptable Crysis 3 ultra 3x1080p -> 

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4632/13/geforce-gtx-700-series-sli-review-geforce-gtx-760770780-in-sli-and-3-way-sli-crysis-3---5760x1080-+-frametimes

Now I proved that a 770 is a waste with high vram loads because of the bus not allowing the GPU storing fast enough data on the memory chips and being complety unplayable you were wrong. A GPU when its not hitting its vram limit doesnt load any data from the hard drive so your more cache theory is just misinformation. Prove: BF4 caches a lot of vram exceeding 2GB on 4GB cards but we see 4GB cards slightly underperforming than 2GB cards.

"4GB variants should be used on SLI" you're just spraying misinformation there again. Reasons why it's a waste 1. Mem bus isn't fast enough to take advantage of such high vram usages 2. At such vram loads you'll have awful frames anyways 3. Frame rendering times are way too high with high vram usages. 

Funny part is that you are assocating the core limitation with the vram limitation which is two different things.

Core will be limited by VRAM in the scenario that you would run out of it, they are related. 

 

There you go again with the bus isn't fast enough :rolleyes:. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your link, with you know, citing a 3 way SLI (total red herring) on 2GB cards. I'm not sure how that's helping your argument.

 

4GB variants should be used on SLI. I don't think you disproved anything at all. I will reiterate, if the GPU runs out of available memory, it will seek the textures necessary to pump out frames and dump what is not in use. The 770 can utilize completely 2gb at any given moment, however the additional data required is still going to be able to be stored on the card.

 

Like you said previously in agreement with me: 

A GPU when its not hitting its vram limit doesnt load any data from the hard drive

It is worth noting that it may load data from the RAM instead/as well.  

 

If I may invoke @TheSLSAMG, @CoolBeans, and @WoodenMarker to see if they can make some sense of what you're rambling or if I'm wrong and whatnot since nobody will probably see this thread again. 

[WoodenMarker]

Getting a card that barely scrapes by and expecting it to last for more than a year is terrible policy. Look where that got people that thought "1.5gb is enough." The GTX 580 is a great card and would be pretty competitive by modern standards, however most are held back by VRAM limitations. Sure, it has a bigger bus, but it absolutely chokes when you get near that VRAM limit. And no, you do see a performance difference especially in higher resolutions, like what the OP plans on doing. Even then, the 770 isn't the most appropriate but I'm not making the decision for him, I'm just here to help. 

In the card's defense, it is from 2 generations ago.

I can see a 2gb sli setup being a bas choice for 4k, but what about for standard 1080p gaming at high to ultra settings? Two 2gb 770s should do more than fine on those terms, no? I dont need ultra settings, Im simply looking for high settings with a smooth above average fps. Example, I get pretty much 50-60fps on bf4 on high. It may dip to 40 under stressful moments. With a second 770 its fair to say I would be getting 60-80+ fps on higj settings with a higher DIPPED fps. And the $300 really isnt somethint thats gonna hurt me, which is why im considering it. I was under the impression that the VRAmwasnt TOO much of a big deal if only on ONE didplay

Well i dont really se myself waiting for new cards to hit, O could try and probably fail especially witj the gossip being maxwell@ quarter 2. I can worry about spending $700+ when maxwell hits, but if I have a handy $300 sittin around, i kinda feel it wouldnt be a bad dexision to go for it. My brain is being very fickle though ans probably just being a stubborn bastard wanting more more more. The announcement of haswepp-e 6 and 8 core chips also gave me kinda giddy for NO reason, my 3770k will be fine for a while

It seems you know that you're impatient and you want to get more fps now. If that's the case and you know what you want, getting a second 770 for sli is a valid choice.

2GB vram is going to be tight later on though.

If I may invoke @TheSLSAMG, @CoolBeans, and @WoodenMarker to see if they can make some sense of what you're rambling or if I'm wrong and whatnot since nobody will probably see this thread again. 

I'm sorry but I'm a bit lost as well.

[Faa]

Core will be limited by VRAM in the scenario that you would run out of it, they are related. 

 

There you go again with the bus isn't fast enough :rolleyes:. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your link, with you know, citing a 3 way SLI (total red herring) on 2GB cards. I'm not sure how that's helping your argument.

 

4GB variants should be used on SLI. I don't think you disproved anything at all. I will reiterate, if the GPU runs out of available memory, it will seek the textures necessary to pump out frames and dump what is not in use. The 770 can utilize completely 2gb at any given moment, however the additional data required is still going to be able to be stored on the card.

 

Like you said previously in agreement with me: 

It is worth noting that it may load data from the RAM instead/as well.  

 

If I may invoke @TheSLSAMG, @CoolBeans, and @WoodenMarker to see if they can make some sense of what you're rambling or if I'm wrong and whatnot since nobody will probably see this thread again. 

O god you don't even know when the VRAM is the limitation so you neither know when the bus is the limitation. As you can see in that review I linked the 770's 2GB was more than enough for 3x1080p Crysis 3, if it wasn't enough you'd see 1 fps in the fps results which we don't -> but the main problem was the bus updating the vram way too slow making the GPU wait & wait and you get high rendering times (120ms) that destroys the smoothness of your game so no it won't handle more than 2GB end of it.

This is the 2nd time proving that a 4GB card is money waste on 256 bit cards and you still don't want to understand the basics. A 770 isn't made for 4GB high intensive textures.

Here's another example; a 690 sitting at 200ms -> http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/4267/18/amd-radeon-hd-7990-qofficialq-review-snelste-videokaart-ter-wereld-crysis-3---5760x1080-+-frametimes

You were just flat out wrong and you should stop spraying nonsense with "4GB variants should be used for SLI" which is complety a ridiculous statement. Because you got a few likes and going against the majority on the internet it means nothing & that you're wrong.

 

 

If I may invoke @TheSLSAMG, @CoolBeans, and @WoodenMarker to see if they can make some sense of what you're rambling or if I'm wrong and whatnot since nobody will probably see this thread again. 

Don't think he will agree with you since he's claiming the same as I am that 4GB is a waste -> http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/103947-stop-this-fairytail-please/#entry1390313

[helping]

O god you don't even know when the VRAM is the limitation so you neither know when the bus is the limitation. As you can see in that review I linked the 770's 2GB was more than enough for 3x1080p Crysis 3, if it wasn't enough you'd see 1 fps in the fps results which we don't -> but the main problem was the bus updating the vram way too slow making the GPU wait & wait and you get high rendering times (120ms) that destroys the smoothness of your game so no it won't handle more than 2GB end of it.

or, you know, it ran out of VRAM and had to load the textures from the RAM/HDD and unload unused textures. 

This is the 2nd time proving that a 4GB card is money waste on 256 bit cards and you still don't want to understand the basics. A 770 isn't made for 4GB high intensive textures.

Here's another example; a 690 sitting at 200ms -> http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/4267/18/amd-radeon-hd-7990-qofficialq-review-snelste-videokaart-ter-wereld-crysis-3---5760x1080-+-frametimes

You were just flat out wrong and you should stop spraying nonsense with "4GB variants should be used for SLI" which is complety a ridiculous statement. Because you got a few likes and going against the majority on the internet it means nothing & that you're wrong.

What I'm getting form this is, "you're stupid, here's another 770 (680) SLI 2GB benchmarks that proves the 4GB 770 is useless, by the way you're wrong and the internet thinks so too"

 

A 4GB card is going to be better than a 2GB card in higher resolutions. In SLI the cores will have enough raw combined power do drive high res or multiple displays, more RAM Is needed to keep textures readily available, so 4GB variants should be used for SLI. Even if it cannot use all 4GB it can use more than 2. 

 

Excuse me if I'm not refuting your argument correctly, I'm still not entire sure what you're trying to convey. 

 

I know you'd rather me not, but seeing as I cannot clearly understand and reply to your argument I will ask @Glenwing and @Kuzma to check through the thread since both seem knowledgeable about graphics cards, and nobody will probably reply here unless you drag them in. Allow them to voice their opinion and let it end there, because it's not clear what we're arguing about anymore.  

 

 

Right or wrong, it would be great if we could elevate this to get an answer from someone more knowledgeable such as @Slick or @LinusTech, though unlikely as they're probably pressed for time.

 

 

Don't think he will agree with you since he's claiming the same as I am that 4GB is a waste -> http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/103947-stop-this-fairytail-please/#entry1390313

 

I missed your edit, and I'm not going to call mark out again, but I implore you to finish reading that thread. 

[Glenwing]

 

O god you don't even know when the VRAM is the limitation so you neither know when the bus is the limitation. As you can see in that review I linked the 770's 2GB was more than enough for 3x1080p Crysis 3, if it wasn't enough you'd see 1 fps in the fps results which we don't -> but the main problem was the bus updating the vram way too slow making the GPU wait & wait and you get high rendering times (120ms) that destroys the smoothness of your game so no it won't handle more than 2GB end of it.

This is the 2nd time proving that a 4GB card is money waste on 256 bit cards and you still don't want to understand the basics. A 770 isn't made for 4GB high intensive textures.

Here's another example; a 690 sitting at 200ms -> http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/4267/18/amd-radeon-hd-7990-qofficialq-review-snelste-videokaart-ter-wereld-crysis-3---5760x1080-+-frametimes

You were just flat out wrong and you should stop spraying nonsense with "4GB variants should be used for SLI" which is complety a ridiculous statement. Because you got a few likes and going against the majority on the internet it means nothing & that you're wrong.

 

 

Don't think he will agree with you since he's claiming the same as I am that 4GB is a waste -> http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/103947-stop-this-fairytail-please/#entry1390313

 

 

Please follow the link in my signature.  This forum is not a place for hostile attitudes.

[Suika]

A 4GB card is going to be better than a 2GB card in higher resolutions.

From everything I've found, this does not hold true for any resolution. 1080p or 4k, benchmarks are identical.

 

If you can post anything proving me wrong, please do. I'm open minded about it, as long as I know what's actually right, I don't care.

 

That aside, here are some benchmarks I managed to find, but of a 760 instead.

 

 

 

There's virtually no difference between the results, in both the GPUs and resolutions. I've heard a 770 in a three way SLI actually utilizes the additional VRAM appropriately, and somebody explained why but I could find it, but for a 3 way SLI, I'd rather get a 780 or 780 Ti in a dual SLI.

 

-EDIT-

 

I did research (shockers!), and did figure a GTX 770 SLI could utilize 4GB of VRAM. A single GTX 770 doesn't offer enough power to use the VRAM, regardless of the memory bus. I just posted this in another thread.

 

That post I mentioned in the other thread, I found it.

 

Anyway, it agrees with you. For an SLI rig, 4GB of VRAM becomes usable, since the 770 is "too weak" to fully utilize the amount of VRAM given. The memory is there, but the performance is not. However, they believed a highly overclocked SLI solution, or three way SLI, would conquer the issue. This was a review of the GTX 680 4GB, but let's admit, it's the same card.

 

My continuing issue? They mentioned it would be wise for a highly overclocked SLI configuration, or three way SLI. Before I look at overclocking my cards a crazy amount, or even three of them, I'll look at a GTX 780 Ti dual SLI before then. If you're willing to the idea of a three way SLI, or plan to upgrade to it at least, then by all means. In my not even professional opinion, I would only consider powerful dual configurations.

 

 

I'm putting this here to remove confusion from future readers.

[helping]

From everything I've found, this does not hold true for any resolution. 1080p or 4k, benchmarks are identical.

 

If you can post anything proving me wrong, please do. I'm open minded about it, as long as I know what's actually right, I don't care.

 

That aside, here are some benchmarks I managed to find, but of a 760 instead.

 

 

 

There's virtually no difference between the results, in both the GPUs and resolutions. I've heard a 770 in a three way SLI actually utilizes the additional VRAM appropriately, and somebody explained why but I could find it, but for a 3 way SLI, I'd rather get a 780 or 780 Ti in a dual SLI.

My care level is close to falling below the threshold of replying, but for the sake of the conversation, you're describing part of what I claimed earlier, albeit the line you quoted is likely poor phrasing on my part.

 

At what point will rendering those textures be slowed down by the GPU and not related to the amount of VRAM? 

 

For the three way SLI I would suspect that it is due to the frame rate being a limit of core as partially removed. I guess I can try to work this as bottle necking on a micro scale. If you have infinite GPU power VRAM will limit frame rate, where if you have infinite VRAM the GPU will limit the frames assuming any arbitrarily large and intricate texture pack. 

 

Of course, still, none of this is factoring in how newer and newer games will occupy VRAM by means or larger and more complex textures.