GTX 760 or GTX 770

[Ariona]

This is my current build http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SaikaDarkmoon/saved/dwqhP6

Of which I want to spend less of course and get the 760, but I want to game at 60FPS 1080p on ultra settings 90% of the time. 

Also If the GTX 770, 2GB or 4GB ? I used to run a supper moded skyrim and my VRAM got full and crashed within 15 minutes. So I'm considering the 4GB version as well. 
 

[Guest]

The 760 is beast, but if you can swing it, the 770 will obviously be better.

 

I have a 2GB 760, and I can run any game max, usually with good AA at 1080p. Ok, mostly any Games like Watch_Dogs with crappy optimization require some lowering, but barely any.

[rambi36]

I would Get an R9 280X. It's price to performance is way better than the 760 and 770 plus it has 3gb vram so your set for modded skyrim at 1080p

[Ariona]

I would Get an R9 280X. It's price to performance is way better than the 760 and 770 plus it has 3gb vram so your set for modded skyrim at 1080p

No ty, I can't live without my shadowplay and Gforce experience . I know AMD has their oh so fancy GameDVR, but they really are not power efficient one damn bit. 

[TheKDub]

I'd say get a 4GB 760.

[91wow]

Look for R9 280's, they are usually cheaper than 760's and preform about as well as some 770's

[91wow]

I'd say get a 4GB 760.

NO BAD 

 

The Vram won't do anything on the core. The GPU core can't power much more than 2GB's so you're paying a lot more for no more performance. 

[Jodomcfrodo]

I'd say get a 4GB 760.

Because the 2gb VRAM will be a bottleneck before the low end GPU of the 760? The 760 will be outdated next year.

[it24]

The AMD DVR is actually very good, i have used it my self. And the power difference is not much between the 770 and R9 280x.

 

http://gyazo.com/e78c3398cb32d0e7175209636e470328

[TheKDub]

NO BAD 

 

The Vram won't do anything on the core. The GPU core can't power much more than 2GB's so you're paying a lot more for no more performance. 

 

Alright, never really thought about that.

[GloriousPain]

This is my current build http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SaikaDarkmoon/saved/dwqhP6

Of which I want to spend less of course and get the 760, but I want to game at 60FPS 1080p on ultra settings 90% of the time. 

Also If the GTX 770, 2GB or 4GB ? I used to run a supper moded skyrim and my VRAM got full and crashed within 15 minutes. So I'm considering the 4GB version as well. 

 

Simple solution  R9 280  

[91wow]

Simple solution  R9 280  

280>Everything else right now

 

2x280's>780/290/290x

[SymphonyX7]

No ty, I can't live without my shadowplay and Gforce experience . I know AMD has their oh so fancy GameDVR, but they really are not power efficient one damn bit. 

Intel QuickSync > Nvidia Shadowplay = AMD Game DVR. I'll attest to that. If you have an Intel Sandy Bridge or newer, just enable the iGPU and set it as the renderer for whatever your recording or streaming program is. Image quality and performance is MUCH better on QuickSync. On both Shadowplay and GameDVR, you actually suffer around a 10% performance deficit when it's encoding. Also, how is it not power efficient? You obviously haven't read the latest reviews of the GTX 770 and R9 280X. The R9 280 (non-X) does consume around 40W more than the GTX 760, which is its main competitor in price, but only because the R9 280 is noticeably faster. Read this: http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/msi-r9-280-gaming-v-pny-gtx760-xlr8-185-shootout/22/

You also mentioned you play modded Skyrim. You'll need more than 2 GB of RAM for that. You'll also need more than 2 GB of RAM to max out the latest titles. Don't listen to the people who claim their 2 GB card is "maxing out" new titles like Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution, Titanfall, BF4, etc. at 1080p. They're definitely lowering some settings to prevent the framebuffer from going over 2 GB. More particularly, they're lowering texture quality, texture mapping, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, which have a strong impact on VRAM usage. It's hard paying over $300 for a card that can't max out settings at 1080p on the latest AAA titles. The 2 GB GTX 770 comes to mind. You could opt for the 4 GB GTX 770, but the R9 290 is so much faster at the same price it isn't even a contest. It's difficult recommending anything from Nvidia except a GTX 780 (1920x1080 to 2560x1440) or GTX 780 Ti (any resolution below 4K/3840x2160). They shouldn't have skimped on the VRAM when they planned on rebranding the 600 series into the 700 series.

[Ariona]

Intel QuickSync > Nvidia Shadowplay = AMD Game DVR. I'll attest to that. If you have an Intel Sandy Bridge or newer, just enable the iGPU and set it as the renderer for whatever your recording or streaming program is. Image quality and performance is MUCH better on QuickSync. On both Shadowplay and GameDVR, you actually suffer around a 10% performance deficit when it's encoding. Also, how is it not power efficient? You obviously haven't read the latest reviews of the GTX 770 and R9 280X. The R9 280 (non-X) does consume around 40W more than the GTX 760, which is its main competitor in price, but only because the R9 280 is noticeably faster. Read this: http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/msi-r9-280-gaming-v-pny-gtx760-xlr8-185-shootout/22/

You also mentioned you play modded Skyrim. You'll need more than 2 GB of RAM for that. You'll also need more than 2 GB of RAM to max out the latest titles. Don't listen to the people who claim their 2 GB card is "maxing out" new titles like Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution, Titanfall, BF4, etc. at 1080p. They're definitely lowering some settings to prevent the framebuffer from going over 2 GB. More particularly, they're lowering texture quality, texture mapping, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, which have a strong impact on VRAM usage. It's hard paying over $300 for a card that can't max out settings at 1080p on the latest AAA titles. The 2 GB GTX 770 comes to mind. You could opt for the 4 GB GTX 770, but the R9 290 is so much faster at the same price it isn't even a contest. It's difficult recommending anything from Nvidia except a GTX 780 (1920x1080 to 2560x1440) or GTX 780 Ti (any resolution below 4K/3840x2160). They shouldn't have skimped on the VRAM when they planned on rebranding the 600 series into the 700 series.

thanks for the info, sounds solid. I guess it comes down to 4GB 770, or the 780. I am not paying 600$ for a GPU. Hell I don't wanna pay over 300 but I wanna max out my games at 1080p... Of course I do not care for MSAA just 8x AA is good enough for me. hell lol FXAA is good enough to me.

 

As for my CPU no Im running an AMD FX 6350 6 core Vishera atdefault 3.9GHz

[KamiKatze]

Why would you want to upgrade? You have a ballin GTX 750 Ti. Overclock this thing to heaven and it should have plenty of performance. The GTX 760 and 770 won't be that big of an upgrade to it. I would at least get the 780 to see a great improvement.

[I/O]

Why would you want to upgrade? You have a ballin GTX 750 Ti. Overclock this thing to heaven and it should have plenty of performance. The GTX 760 and 770 won't be that big of an upgrade to it. I would at least get the 780 to see a great improvement.

Are you kidding ? The 750ti is not as you say "ballin". It can hardly keep it's head above water in modern games @ 1080p and you can forget about using AA because of the crippled memory bus width. The 760/770 will be a monumental upgrade over a lowly entry level 750ti. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_750_Ti_OC/7.html 750ti is intended for entry level gamers with low end OEM PCs that don't have an available PCI-E power dongle and or a PSU up to the task of running a real deal GPU like a 760/770 etc.

[KamiKatze]

Are you kidding ? The 750ti is not as you say "ballin". It can hardly keep it's head above water in modern games @ 1080p and you can forget about using AA because of the crippled memory bus width. The 760/770 will be a monumental upgrade over a lowly entry level 750ti. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_750_Ti_OC/7.html 750ti is intended for entry level gamers with low end OEM PCs that don't have an available PCI-E power dongle and or a PSU up to the task of running a real deal GPU like a 760/770 etc.

 

Lol. had different charts in my memory. A friend of mine has one and he overclocked it by 30%. He reported good stuff about it. Maxing out Titanfall @60r15 FPS for example. Buuuut that friend of mine isn't so tech savy. Meh, my vote goes GTX 770 4 GB then.

[I/O]

Lol. had different charts in my memory. A friend of mine has one and he overclocked it by 30%. He reported good stuff about it. Maxing out Titanfall @60r15 FPS for example. Buuuut that friend of mine isn't so tech savy. Meh, my vote goes GTX 770 4 GB then.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/1319-titanfall-pc-video-card-gpu-benchmark

 

Some how I don't think that the 750ti comes close to a full fat GPU like the 760. The 750ti will never get great framerates in Titanfall.

[SymphonyX7]

 

thanks for the info, sounds solid. I guess it comes down to 4GB 770, or the 780. I am not paying 600$ for a GPU. Hell I don't wanna pay over 300 but I wanna max out my games at 1080p... Of course I do not care for MSAA just 8x AA is good enough for me. hell lol FXAA is good enough to me.

 

As for my CPU no Im running an AMD FX 6350 6 core Vishera atdefault 3.9GHz

I suggest you go for a GTX 780 then. If you're doing heavy overclocking, I suggest the EVGA Superclocked ACX. If you're not, I suggest the cheapest non-reference GTX 780 you can find. I don't recommend the reference card because of its low clocks. The reference card has core clocks below 900 Mhz. Most non-reference cards are clocked around 1 Ghz. The GTX 780 still maintains a healthy 5 to 10% lead on average versus the R9 290 at resolutions between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. Beyond that, the GTX 780 will start to trail behind. The price premium of the GTX 780 is still justified at this resolution bracket.

As for the 4 GB GTX 770, I cannot in good conscience recommend it. At $400, it's a complete highway robbery. A $300 R9 280X will perform practically the same. Heck, the R9 280X is even faster on the latest titles thanks to its wider 384-bit bus. At $400, the R9 290 is approximately 20 to 25% faster than both the R9 280X and GTX 770. That's why it's so hard to recommend either 2 GB or 4 GB GTX 770s. The 2 GB won't allow you to max out many new titles while the asking price for the 4 GB is absurd.

P.S. It's funny how you complain about the supposed inefficiency of AMD's cards when you use an AMD CPU. I haven't recommended an AMD CPU in the past two years simply because of how inefficient they are. A stock Core i3 consumes less than 60W on full load, while the FX-6300 on stock consumes over 140W, and the Core i3 would still be much faster in most cases.

[Ariona]

P.S. It's funny how you complain about the supposed inefficiency of AMD's cards when you use an AMD CPU. I haven't recommended an AMD CPU in the past two years simply because of how inefficient they are. A stock Core i3 consumes less than 60W on full load, while the FX-6300 on stock consumes over 140W, and the Core i3 would still be much faster in most cases.

I know, the MB, heatsink, and CPU are OEMs from an HP ENVY H8-1534. I plan to upgrade that soon.