Why NOT to get the 760/770 4GB

[TechSage]

Well they could sit on each other's laps....

Same with data, but then shit get's corrupted if you can't differentiate them.  

[old reece frost]

I learnt something new today.

[TechSage]

I learnt something new today.

GIVE THIS MAN A COOKIE.   :P :P

[TheMissxu]

wrong look at the benchmarks for the GT 640 4gb, its garbage.

Find me a FCAT benchmark between a GT 640 2gb and a GT 640 4gb. I'm pretty sure the frame time variance will be lower as (to use another's analogy), you can only sit 250 people on a 500 person airplane, but when you come to pick up 250 more people, you don't have to wait for the original people to get off.

[nokturrduk84]

I learnt something new today.

Would you share it with us?

[TechSage]

Would you share it with us?

Read my first original post in this thread. 

[helping]

No, this calls for me to go mod a game and get my 760 using more than 2GB of VRAM. 

Well, results?

[TechSage]

Well, results?

I've been waiting since 2013!

[R4STABAN]

The results will be that 4GB of vram is usable but the extra vram incurs a small fps drop and frame time increase

[TheCrazyCryptonian]

Okay so in a nutshell, don't get the 760 or 770 4GB version because the memory bus simply isn't big enough to accommodate for the amount of VRAM that it has.

 

The general rule of thumb is 128 bit per gigabyte of VRAM. But the 770 has 256 bit bus so that means that 2GB of VRAM can be used, but not 4GB since it just isn't big enough. If you look at the R9 290X, it has a 512 bit bus, so that means it can use all 4GB of VRAM that it has.

 

Edit: Although you  may use a little over 2GB, there is so much data going through the bus and due to the bus not being big enough, it will drop your FPS.

 

Feel free to link this if someone doesn't know why everyone is saying not to get the 770 4GB 

 

I have been going around onto other forums for months shouting at people for this

[nokturrduk84]

Answer is here:

 

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

[TechSage]

People don't have the needs that you do, stop flamming people for wanting 4GB VRam on a Graphics card.

In Surround that 4GB will be of great value and is worth it.

 

In Single monitor the difference is reduced somewhat, but at 1600p with details I would pick a 4GB Card.

 

Remember how the 570 was gimped by only having 1.2GB Vram and people said as much.

My needs? I'm an average gamer. I'm simply telling everyone the truth that the 4GB makes no difference. The post above you has the benchmarks between the 2 and 4GB versions

[Analog]

Interesting... Then why they made 4gb versions of those cards?

 

For users who want to SLI. When in SLI the memory bus speeds add up. 

[TechSage]

I run at 1440p with Crossfire 2GB 7870's and use all my 2GB up.

Not everyone games at 1080p.

But in Surround, the 4Gb version doesn't make a difference. look at the benchmarks in the link a couple posts up

[Kuzma]

So you pretty much ripped off my thread?

[TechSage]

So you pretty much ripped off my thread?

Didn't you made a thread about this. But I was completely obvious to this issue until you pointed out. I didn't read your thread, but I thought it would be easy to link this to whoever is confused. Let's say you encouraged me, if I had known. I never would have made it. 

[Leonard]

Okay so in a nutshell, don't get the 760 or 770 4GB version because the memory bus simply isn't big enough to accommodate for the amount of VRAM that it has.

 

The general rule of thumb is 128 bit per gigabyte of VRAM. But the 770 has 256 bit bus so that means that 2GB of VRAM can be used, but not 4GB since it just isn't big enough. If you look at the R9 290X, it has a 512 bit bus, so that means it can use all 4GB of VRAM that it has.

 

Edit: Although you  may use a little over 2GB, there is so much data going through the bus and due to the bus not being big enough, it will drop your FPS.

 

Feel free to link this if someone doesn't know why everyone is saying not to get the 770 4GB 

Can you corroborate this, if you can i thank you for this information, very very worth while.

[Kuzma]

Didn't you made a thread about this. But I was completely obvious to this issue until you pointed out. I didn't read your thread, but I thought it would be easy to link this to whoever is confused. Let's say you encouraged me, if I had known. I never would have made it. 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/44197-memory-bus-size-and-how-it-effects-your-vram-usage/

It's over 6 months old and I bump it all the time ._. I spent so much time on it; look at the calculations.........

[TechSage]

Can you corroborate this, if you can i thank you for this information, very very worth while.

so, the information is in fact true, you cannot really benefit from getting the 4GB version, the price you pay extra is pointless for the performance boost you get. In some cases, the 2GB version comes out on top

 

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

[R4STABAN]

The benchmarks above are single card? Well that's pointless. These cards have nowhere near enough grunt to utilise 4GB of vram on their own. (Without batshit mods).

2GB SLI 770s/680s is borderline for 3x1080p depending on game. Memory can become saturated if you don't disable Aero before playing, causing CTD/ driver crash. (I used to play this). 2 gpus still isn't powerful enough to warrant 4GB of vram. 3 gpus is.

The whole 'can't access 4GB' is a strange myth perpetuated by people that read something on a forum and think it's true. The simple fact is the cards are designed with the stock memory config in mind and only in execeptional circumstances would the 4GB cards make any sense.

[Leonard]

so, the information is in fact true, you cannot really benefit from getting the 4GB version, the price you pay extra is pointless for the performance boost you get. In some cases, the 2GB version comes out on top

 

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

It doesn't say though, if the results for the resolutions higher than 1080p are recorded on a single high resolution monitor or a multi-monitor setup, or did i miss that?

[TechSage]

It doesn't say though, if the results for the resolutions higher than 1080p are recorded on a single high resolution monitor or a multi-monitor setup, or did i miss that?

both, check it again, there is surround and single monitor

 

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

[Leonard]

both, check it again, there is surround and single monitor

 

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

Ok. Well i thank you for this insight as i was poised to buy a 770 4GB version at the end of this month. That has been cancelled with this post. Someone should put Nvida to task on this.

[TechSage]

Ok. Well i thank you for this insight as i was poised to buy a 770 4GB version at the end of this month. That has been cancelled with this post. Someone should put Nvida to task on this.

Maxwell will be a major improvement, if this post didn't exist, I'd still tell you to wait for Maxwell, since it's a whole new Architecture 

[gligoran]

Okay so in a nutshell, don't get the 760 or 770 4GB version because the memory bus simply isn't big enough to accommodate for the amount of VRAM that it has.

 

The general rule of thumb is 128 bit per gigabyte of VRAM. But the 770 has 256 bit bus so that means that 2GB of VRAM can be used, but not 4GB since it just isn't big enough. If you look at the R9 290X, it has a 512 bit bus, so that means it can use all 4GB of VRAM that it has.

 

Edit: Although you  may use a little over 2GB, there is so much data going through the bus and due to the bus not being big enough, it will drop your FPS.

 

Feel free to link this if someone doesn't know why everyone is saying not to get the 770 4GB 

 

Update: It's confirmed, you don't benefit by getting the 4GB version (this benchmark is only for the 770): http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

 

I've almost the entire thread, but most of it is you repeating yourself that the bus isn't wide enough.

 

From your original post I see 2 very separate things, that you seem to have merged into one:

1. One is that the width of the bus limits the card to how much VRAM it can use. After reading the thread I'm still not sure if this is a hard limit or a bottleneck. You seem to alternate between those.
2. The second is that 4GB does not increase performance over the 2GB card with FPS being the metric.

You also cite  proof.

 

OK, so here are my thoughs.

 

You've never explained, how the VRAM is limited with the width of the bus. I found this http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/explain-to-me-how-memory-width-128-192-256-bit-etc-is-related-to-memory-amount.170588/#post-2699537. As far as I can tell the width of the bus is the number of controllers multiplied by their width. The bus, as with motherboards, limits the speed of delivery of of data from VRAM to the GPU, not the amount it can actually use. The speed is also determined by the VRAM clock speed. I'd really your thoughts on this.

 

I agree with the second point, more ram will not increase FPS. That's like saying a 4 litre bucket will fill a 1 litre bucket faster than a 2 litre one. You only needed 1 litre in the first place, so you can fill both of them with the needed 1 and pour it into the other. But what happens when you need to fill a 3 litre bucket? With the 2 litre bucket you'll need refilling, which I'm not really sure how to translate in graphics cards terms.

 

The article you cite is a good resource, but it does state this on page 1:

 

Both GTX 770s use the same GPU, and when clocks are set similarly, the performance is effectively identical as long as the framebuffer of the 2GB card is not exceeded.

 

The author unfortunately doesn't mention framebuffers in the rest of the article. It would be nice to see memory usages in his tests and what happens when the framebuffer on the 2GB card exceeds those 2GB.

 

All I can conclude from all of this is that a 4GB doesn't make sense when your only going to use 2GB or less.