770 4gb vs. 780 6gb @ 1080p

[CaffienatedBovine]

I plan on building a system in the future and I am wondering if it's worth paying nearly twice as much to go from 4gb 770 to a 6gb 780. I don't do any high resolution gaming given my monitor is 1920x1080. Can you justify a 600$ card for 1080p gaming or is it just a bad value?

 

-BTW I want at least 4gb vram so I am not considering a 3gb 780

[ZacDaMan72]

facepalm.

 

Dude, 2GB of VRAM is good for 1080p, the only reason for 4GB+ is for 4K. Get a 3GB 780.

[ZacDaMan72]

You don't need to buy a top class card for just 1080p, even 750ti can most play most new games in ultra alteast till next year.

At 30FPS, sure.

[Maslofski]

ive you do 3D modeling, go for the most vram, ive you game go for 3, future proof for 4k will require a GPU upgrade

[CaffienatedBovine]

facepalm.

 

Dude, 2GB of VRAM is good for 1080p, the only reason for 4GB+ is for 4K. Get a 3GB 780.

I'm not convinced that that's true for these "next-gen" games, for instance Watch Dogs saw huge performance boosts with more video memory. If someone could point me to some benchmarks that say otherwise then I guess I'll get a less expensive 780.

[SeanBond]

Just get a 780ti 3gb instead of spending to much on a single 780 with unreasonable 6gbs.

[ZacDaMan72]

I'm not convinced that that's true for these "next-gen (BS)" games, for instanced Watch Dogs saw huge performance boosts with more video memory.

Watch Dogs runs at 55fps avg on a 2GB 770 on high settings on my friends PC.

[SeanBond]

I'm not convinced that that's true for these "next-gen" games, for instance Watch Dogs saw huge performance boosts with more video memory.

watch dogs is a piece of shit port. It's a piece of shit port with 50gbs of vram. You shouldn't be building a system around the idea of terrible ports. Bf4 uses about 2gbs and crysis 3...still the best looking game uses 2.3gbs of vram. 

[TheTacoSniper]

if you don't plan on building it in another month or two, wait for the 800 series m8

[CoolBeans]

Just get a 290, it will be the same price as the 770 and be more powerful 

[ZacDaMan72]

lol, then what is this? stop giving false info. he gets 30fps while recording with fraps the huge fps waster.

My 270X doesn't even do 60FPS on ultra BF4.

 

 

STFU.

[SeanBond]

Just get a 290, it will be the same price as the 770 and be more powerful 

I am actually with you on this I never really recommend the 290s but they amd card tend to have way more ram than they need for some reason. If ram is what you really think is important, you are a bit misguided but amd will definitely have you covered. A 290 4g will be just as good at a 770 4gb but cheaper.

[CaffienatedBovine]

if you don't plan on building it in another month or two, wait for the 800 series m8

If I do wait for them, how much more expensive will they be? At that point would an 860 be good enough?

[CoolBeans]

lol, then what is this? stop giving false info. he gets 30fps while recording with fraps the huge fps waster.

edit: actually for some reason i can't embed video so here the link :

 

 

lol so it worked with the link, haha

 

it says in the description:

 

FPS (without Fraps)

Min: 18

Max: 41 

Avg: 29

[CoolBeans]

I am actually with you on this I never really recommend the 290s but they amd card tend to have way more ram than they need for some reason. If ram is what you really think is important, you are a bit misguided but amd will definitely have you covered. A 290 4g will be just as good at a 770 4gb but cheaper.

 

it would be just as good as the 780 and even more cheaper

[ForsakenLive]

I'm not convinced that that's true for these "next-gen" games, for instance Watch Dogs saw huge performance boosts with more video memory.

The truth is the GPU bottlenecks the amount of memory you use, if the GPU isn't fast enough to use the data it doesn't really matter if it buffers 3GB of it when less is actually being considered. Memory usage doesn't mean that amount of memory isn't actually helping with the rendering.

Another important point is bottlenecks on the memory speed and bus, 128bit bus per GB is the rule of thumb, that's why the 770 only has 2GB on the standard model (256 bit bus) the 780 3GB (384 bit bus) and the R9 290X 4GB (512 bit bus). You can put an "extra module" on the same channel, just like you do with RAM on the motherboard, and doubles the amount of memory you can use, but doesn't change performance. That's why it's always double the memory on the editions with more of it. Example 4GB 770 up from 2GB.

While having more memory can increase final FPS a tiny bit, it's nothing more than pure marketing, and mispreaded information on forums and stores, that tell you "future games will require a ton more memory".

 

You don't want to believe? Look at real world gaming benchmarks and compare results, the different is not over 5fps on 1080p and doesn't make that much difference on higher resolutions.

If you want to prepare yourself for 4k, then wait until new GPUs arrive as for today unless you crossfire 2 high end GPUs it doesn't get to the point where performance is there. Going with the R9 290X or R9 290 is going to be a bit better.

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

Really? Even for those who are dumb enough to think more RAM=more power would think that the 6gb 780 beats the 4gb 770. Does this even need to be asked? Oh and btw, get a damn 2gb or 3 gb card.

[Spongy141]

I am actually with you on this I never really recommend the 290s but they amd card tend to have way more ram than they need for some reason. If ram is what you really think is important, you are a bit misguided but amd will definitely have you covered. A 290 4g will be just as good at a 770 4gb but cheaper.

What? Where do you get your information? A R9 290 can beat a 780, so how could a 770 match it?

[CaffienatedBovine]

I am actually with you on this I never really recommend the 290s but they amd card tend to have way more ram than they need for some reason. If ram is what you really think is important, you are a bit misguided but amd will definitely have you covered. A 290 4g will be just as good at a 770 4gb but cheaper.

At this point, as a big fan of GeForce experience and someone who mainly plays AC, Batman, and other games that nvidia has pushed heavily, (also being a potential shield owner sometime this year) I can't see myself going to the red team.

[ZacDaMan72]

see the video edited.

 

BTW, you've earned it:

[ZacDaMan72]

If I do wait for them, how much more expensive will they be? At that point would an 860 be good enough?

The 870 should be at the same performance level as the 780, the 970 (if it's called that) will be as good as the 880 and so forth.

[CaffienatedBovine]

What? Where do you get your information? A R9 290 can beat a 780, so how could a 770 match it?

Then, assuming I'm an nvidia fanboy (which is true to some degree) should I wait for something like an 870 for better price/performance?

[CaffienatedBovine]

The 870 should be at the same performance level as the 780, the 970 (if it's called that) will be as good as the 880 and so forth.

How much could I expect to pay for an 870, or 860? (I know they haven't released prices but what are the current estimation for what they might be?)

[Spongy141]

Then, assuming I'm an nvidia fanboy (which is true to some degree) should I wait for something like an 870 for better price/performance?

Well, with some talk about average price of nvidia cards going up, I would say no, if you can set aside fanboyism (I personally have to for AMD) then the 290 would be a GREAT bang for the buck.

[ForsakenLive]

My 270X doesn't even do 60FPS on ultra BF4.

 

 

 

STFU.

 

Benchmarks vary a LOT, it depends on the exact settings and test system used, "ultra" is not a standard, some folks like to crank up every possible setting, even if it doesn't make sense at all or barely know what they do, other benchmarkers try giving out information on settings that are what the end user will most likely use. If the GPU is OC'ed or not, and by how much matters too and is often not included on basic reviews and youtube videos.

The largest difference is how is it benchmarked, if you do it like TinyTomLogan from OC3D on Tomb Rider, where he just AFKs on a cliff the results are a lot more generous, if you do it like the guys of HardoCP that play through the most chaotic part of the game and measure the fps, the results will have much smaller numbers.

 

So when someone says "my friend has a GT 750ti and has 80fps on BF4" a lot of info is not there, like what's his system, exact settings, core and memory clocks, and finally, is he just looking at the floor on the base or is he measuring it on the heat of the battle while a building is exploding?.

 

IMO, between a R9 270 and a GTX 770 is the sweetspot on 1080p, where you can play every game on high settings at 60+fps without spending a ton of cash. Going ultra with every possible filter is 90% for the placebo effect.