Which graphics card for my system - 770 v 7970

[spoffle]

If you look at it that way, your arguement makes sense.

If I was buying a GPU I would be looking for the larger memory/wider bus for the simple reason that I would want to go SLI/Xfire at high resolution.

Of course, it makes no sense at all to buy cards with lesser RAM and memory bandwidth when you're talking similar money.

That aside, think about it, when the cards are getting a bit old, the ones with 3GB RAM and a 384 bit bus will be able to run games at greater memory intensive settings, higher res textures, higher res and so on.

You'd have to lower the settings more, a fair amount more on a card with 2GB of RAM and 256bit bus than you will on a 3GB card with 384bit bus.

 

[Kaapstad]

Of course, it makes no sense at all to buy cards with lesser RAM and memory bandwidth when you're talking similar money.

That aside, think about it, when the cards are getting a bit old, the ones with 3GB RAM and a 384 bit bus will be able to run games at greater memory intensive settings, higher res textures, higher res and so on.

You'd have to lower the settings more, a fair amount more on a card with 2GB of RAM and 256bit bus than you will on a 3GB card with 384bit bus.

You have got to have the GPU grunt in the first place. A Titan does not use much more vram than a GTX 680 on a single monitor as it is just not powerful enough to raise the settings high enough.

A 2gb per GPU GTX 690 will thrash a 6gb Titan on a single monitor using the highest in game settings, it is a total non contest.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Of course, it makes no sense at all to buy cards with lesser RAM and memory bandwidth when you're talking similar money.

That aside, think about it, when the cards are getting a bit old, the ones with 3GB RAM and a 384 bit bus will be able to run games at greater memory intensive settings, higher res textures, higher res and so on.

You'd have to lower the settings more, a fair amount more on a card with 2GB of RAM and 256bit bus than you will on a 3GB card with 384bit bus.

Yea. The issue with the GTX770 is not just the vram amount, but more about its 256-bit memory bus, making it having only a memory bandwidth of 224GB/sec comparing to the 7950/7970's 288GB/sec.

Also to run more salt to the wound, there's seem to be quite a few issues with the recent Nvidia drivers as well...

 

[ubersonic]

That aside, think about it, when the cards are getting a bit old, the ones with 3GB RAM and a 384 bit bus will be able to run games at greater memory intensive settings, higher res textures, higher res and so on.

You would think so, but historically speaking its usually the case that by the time the cards with high ram (I.E 5200 512MB, 9600GSO 1.5GB, GTX460 2GB, etc) get to the point in time where their RAM would give them an advantage over their smaller RAM'd contemporaries it doesn't actually work as they don't have the GPU grunt to run stuff at max settings anymore.

 

[spoffle]

You would think so, but historically speaking its usually the case that by the time the cards with high ram (I.E 5200 512MB, 9600GSO 1.5GB, GTX460 2GB, etc) get to the point in time where their RAM would give them an advantage over their smaller RAM'd contemporaries it doesn't actually work as they don't have the GPU grunt to run stuff at max settings anymore.

The "GPU Grunt" being linked the memory footprint isn't really true, it's a case of people seeing a correlation and thinking it's causation.

Additionally, maybe not maximum settings, you would have to turn the settings down further, memory intensive settings like AA, resolution, texture quality and so on more on a 256bit 2GB card than you would on a 3GB 384bit card.

 

[Kaapstad]

You would think so, but historically speaking its usually the case that by the time the cards with high ram (I.E 5200 512MB, 9600GSO 1.5GB, GTX460 2GB, etc) get to the point in time where their RAM would give them an advantage over their smaller RAM'd contemporaries it doesn't actually work as they don't have the GPU grunt to run stuff at max settings anymore.

+1

 

[spoffle]

You have got to have the GPU grunt in the first place. A Titan does not use much more vram than a GTX 680 on a single monitor as it is just not powerful enough to raise the settings high enough.

A 2gb per GPU GTX 690 will thrash a 6gb Titan on a single monitor using the highest in game settings, it is a total non contest.

You don't, as I've said correlation doesn't equate to causation.

There are many graphical features that are memory intensive but not computationally intensive, for example high resolution assets.

You also seem to be of the assumption that available GPU power dictates how much VRAM a game will use.

Just because your Titan only uses a certain amount of VRAM in some games doesn't mean that GPU power dictates memory usage.

That's also ignoring memory caching as well.

 

[arc@css]

+1

+2

 

[Kaapstad]

The "GPU Grunt" being linked the memory footprint isn't really true, it's a case of people seeing a correlation and thinking it's causation.

Additionally, maybe not maximum settings, you would have to turn the settings down further, memory intensive settings like AA, resolution, texture quality and so on more on a 256bit 2GB card than you would on a 3GB 384bit card.

You are going round in circles.

As I said earlier how can a 2gb card like the GTX 690 using max game settings beat a 6gb card like the Titan @1600p

Answer

The 2gb vram/256bit bus is not the problem, the Titan does not have the GPU grunt.

 

[spoffle]

You are going round in circles.

As I said earlier how can a 2gb card like the GTX 690 using max game settings beat a 6gb card like the Titan @1600p

Answer

The 2gb vram/256bit bus is not the problem, the Titan does not have the GPU grunt.

Because VRAM usage isn't linked to GPU usage...

A 690 will beat a Titan in GPU dependent games as long as memory or memory bus isn't a factor.

Tell me, how to in game settings consume memory, and how does GPU "grunt" relate to them?

 

[Kaapstad]

Because VRAM usage isn't linked to GPU usage...

A 690 will beat a Titan in GPU dependent games as long as memory or memory bus isn't a factor.

Tell me, how to in game settings consume memory, and how does GPU "grunt" relate to them?

You are using waffle to try and make a logical argument.

The bottom line is in a practical test the 2gb GTX 690 beats the 6gb Titan when playing games.

The ability to play games is what this debate is about.

 

[spoffle]

You are using waffle to try and make a logical argument.

I'm not. Can you not answer the question?

The bottom line is in a practical test the 2gb GTX 690 beats the 6gb Titan when playing games.

That doesn't mean GPU "grunt" and VRAM usage are intrinsically linked though.

That means you're comparing games where VRAM and bandwidth aren't an issue for the attained framerate.

The ability to play games is what this debate is about.

Sure it is, but it's moved beyond that to why would you buy a lower spec card at this point in time? There's no argument for why you should buy a card with lesser RAM and memory bandwidth which is poorer value for money, when GPU performance is very similar.

 

[Marine-RX179]

You are going round in circles.

As I said earlier how can a 2gb card like the GTX 690 using max game settings beat a 6gb card like the Titan @1600p

Answer

The 2gb vram/256bit bus is not the problem, the Titan does not have the GPU grunt.

It's not really about who win who lose though is it?

I mean strictly from analysing from technical point of view, while the GTX690 is no doubt "beating" the Titan due superior GPU grunt, it still doesn't change the fact that it the 690 is losing more fps than it should when using high AA/res/texture, than if it was on 384-bit bus.

When GPU are equal between two cards, the higher memory-bus can sustain frame rate better as the higher the AA/res/texture quality get. Why do you think Fermi based cards such as the GTX470/GTX480/GTX570/GTX580 sustain frame rate so much better with less drop (percentage wise) in frame rate when using higher AA, comparing to cards 5850/5870/GTX460's frame rate would pitfall to hell (at like double the rate) like ah lift's wire has snapped, when they do the same with applying high AA? That's the difference between 384-bit and 256-bit cards.

 

[tommybhoy]

The bottom line is in a practical test the 2gb GTX 690 beats the 6gb Titan when playing games.

Have you tried the rooftop level in Hitman with the helicopter on full max settings?

A few reviews said the 2Gb is a limiting factor running SLi as that part of the game uses(not caching) more than 2Gb.

It's down to the individual whether 2Gb/256bit is a limitation or not, no point in preaching whether it is or isn't as it's pretty inconclusive at the moment.

Also read that more vram gives lower frametimes, iirc it was tested on a 2Gb/4Gb 670 Sli setup, but what can't be denied, more vram/higher bus, is more beneficial than not for those that don't upgrade often.

 

[spoffle]

It's not really about who win who lose though is it?

I mean strictly from analysing from technical point of view, while the GTX690 is no doubt "beating" the Titan due superior GPU grunt, it still doesn't change the fact that it the 690 would lose more fps than it should when using high AA/res/texture, than if it was on 384-bit bus.

When GPU are equal between two cards, the higher memory-bus can sustain frame rate better the higher the AA/res/texture quality get. Why do you think Fermi based cards such as the GTX470/GTX480/GTX570/GTX580 sustain frame rate so much better with less drop (percentage wise) in frame rate when using higher AA, when cards 5850/5870/GTX460's frame rate would pitfall to hell like ah lift's wire has snapped, when they do the same with applying high AA? That's the difference between 384-bit and 256-bit cards.

This is pretty much my point. You will have to start turning settings down more on a 256bit card with 2GB RAM than you would on a 3GB with 384bit bus width.

It's got nothing to do with AMD versus nVidia. nVidia went with a 384bit bus on the 580s, the 580s now with 3GB VRAM will be doing a lot better than the 580 with 1.5GB of RAM, but both will cope decently due to the greater bus width as long as 1.5GB of RAM isn't exceeded on the 1.5GB card.

 

[Kaapstad]

I think the GTX 690 v Titan contest on a single monitor would be all the proof I need that 2gb is enough for a single screen.

It is a practical test
It is repeatable
It has been done many times

If I was in the market for a GPU all I am interested in is how well it will run games, I don't care if the card has 2gb or 20gb of vram all I need to know is will it do the job.

In the practical demo above the 2gb card comes out on top.

I want a GPU to run games, what do you want to use them for spoffle ?

 

[spoffle]

I think the GTX 690 v Titan contest on a single monitor would be all the proof I need that 2gb is enough for a single screen.

It is a practical test
It is repeatable
It has been done many times

If I was in the market for a GPU all I am interested in is how well it will run games, I don't care if the card has 2gb or 20gb of vram all I need to know is will it do the job.

In the practical demo above the 2gb card comes out on top.

I want a GPU to run games, what do you want to use them for spoffle ?

I shall ask again.

1) Tell me, how to in game settings consume memory, and how does GPU "grunt" relate to them?

2) Why would you buy a card with lesser RAM and memory bandwidth which is poorer value for money, when GPU performance is very similar, over another card with more RAM, greater memory bandwidth and comes with 8 games currently?

 

[Kaapstad]

This is pretty much my point. You will have to start turning settings down more on a 256bit card with 2GB RAM than you would on a 3GB with 384bit bus width.

It's got nothing to do with AMD versus nVidia. nVidia went with a 384bit bus on the 580s, the 580s now with 3GB VRAM will be doing a lot better than the 580 with 1.5GB of RAM, but both will cope decently due to the greater bus width as long as 1.5GB of RAM isn't exceeded on the 1.5GB card.

You would never get a 6gb Titan, but using your reasoning you are making a pretty good case for getting one.

Anyway I am done here

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[spoffle]

You would never get a 6gb Titan, but using your reasoning you are making a pretty good case for getting one.

Not particularly, because Titans cost around 3x the price of a 7970 and nearly 4x a 7950.

Are you taking my posts out of context on purpose? Because it feels that way.

When I've pretty much said, all things being equal barring VRAM and memory bandwidth, why would you go for the card with less of both?

How is "you're making a good argument for a Titan" an appropriate response to that with the above considered?

Anyway I am done here

We will have to agree to disagree.

I shall ask again.

1) Tell me, how to in game settings consume memory, and how does GPU "grunt" relate to them?

2) Why would you buy a card with lesser RAM and memory bandwidth which is poorer value for money, when GPU performance is very similar, over another card with more RAM, greater memory bandwidth and comes with 8 games currently?

 

[Krisali]

Going for 2GB now isn't really a great idea anyway when spending this sort of money.

Games are going to start using more and more VRAM, so cards with 2GB are going to become redundant a lot sooner than cards with 3GB+ when GPU performance is largely similar.

Ahhh I was waiting for this old chestnut

Sorry not to be able to say get this card its better then the other, but in this case the two you have asked about are very very evenly matched, good luck with your choice.

+1