GTX 760 vs 770

This Side Up · 29 Jan 2014 at 13:37

Hi guys,

Trying to spec up my new PC system (it's somewhat of a major step up from my current rig which is so old I believe I have seen Time Team snooping around!) and am undecided on which mid-high Nvidia card to go for.

I've decided to stick with Nvidia out of personal preference.

The choices are (for similar pricing points of <£20 difference) GTX 760 4GB or GTX 770 2GB.

I've looked at the usual graphical comparison charts which pits the 770 slightly ahead of the 760 (funny, that) but I was wondering whether I would actually benefit from the more horsepower that the 770 can offer versus the increase in video memory that the 760 4GB offers.

Also, the 770 4GB is a little beyond my price point at the moment

Thanks for your patience duders, it's been almost a decade since I had my hand in building gaming rigs and, as I am sure you will all be telling me, technology has moved on somewhat.

//edited to add:
I don't often bother with overclocking, so please assume I'll be keeping all purchased products at stock speeds/spec.

Vertiginous · 29 Jan 2014 at 14:24

Ive just recently swapped from a 4gb card to a 2gb 770 and with 3 1080p screens ive noticed no difference except more fps in the games i play, Personally id take the 770 just because of the extra fps..

ndaar · 29 Jan 2014 at 14:25

Unless you are running a very high resolution the 760 will never make use of the extra ram so I would opt for the 2gig 770.

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 14:31

GTX 770, although personally i would go for the R9 280X.

This Side Up · 29 Jan 2014 at 15:08

humbug said:
GTX 770, although personally i would go for the R9 280X.

Any particular reason fro AMD versus Nvidia? My current dinosaur has the HD 5770 (don't laugh!) and whereas it's been good for my usage up to now I always felt that the equivalent Nvidia offering was superior in terms of performance.

This Side Up · 29 Jan 2014 at 15:09

ndaar said:
Unless you are running a very high resolution the 760 will never make use of the extra ram so I would opt for the 2gig 770.

OK.

I take it 1080p isn't classed as "high" resolutions? That's what I currently run and that's what I'll most likely continue to run on the new system.

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 15:13

This Side Up said:
Any particular reason fro AMD versus Nvidia? My current dinosaur has the HD 5770 (don't laugh!) and whereas it's been good for my usage up to now I always felt that the equivalent Nvidia offering was superior in terms of performance.

The 280X has 3GB vRam and a 384Bit bus, its at-least as fast as the GTX 770 @ 1080P and deals better with higher res or settings, the more demanding it gets the better its performance scales compared with the GTX 770.

IMO 3GB is increasingly necessary these days for a card with that much power. i have a 2GB Tahiti LE and by cranking the setting and res- scaling up i can make it run out of its 2GB at perfectly playable frame rates in BF4.

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 15:22

What it looks like in BF4 performance, and this is before Mantle.

This Side Up · 29 Jan 2014 at 15:31

I'll definitely consider the 280x. Thanks.

TAZOO7 · 29 Jan 2014 at 16:15

thing with low end cards is this, they not got the power on there own to max out games so the chances of you hitting a Vram wall is slim, sli on the other hand might be different, still only a hand full of games that will require more than 2 gig of Vram at 1080P, the 280X is a decent card, but if i was you id get the R290 as it will serve you longer if you can handle the fans and heat

Not sure where that chart is from, but from what i have seen with my own eyes, the 290 and 290X are a lot closer than that in BF4 than that chart suggest

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 16:21

TAZOO7 said:
thing with low end cards is this, they not got the power on there own to max out games so the chances of you hitting a Vram wall is slim, sli on the other hand might be different, still only a hand full of games that will require more than 2 gig of Vram at 1080P, the 280X is a decent card, but if i was you id get the R290 as it will serve you longer if you can handle the fans and heat

Not sure where that chart is from, but from what i have seen with my own eyes, the 290 and 290X are a lot closer than that in BF4 than that chart suggest

I will take a screen shot later to show you how much vRam i'm using at what settings, even at setting where i get good FPS its still pushing it close.

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 16:50

My FPS are 45 to 60 with Dynamic vSync locked to 60. these are my everyday settings. though i do change them every now and then....

1892MB @ 59FPS

1874MB @ 54FPS

1870MB @ 48FPS

In Game Settings

I have set the setting so high with 125 to 150% Resolution scaling just to see if it would hit the vRam limit, it easily does, and when it does it begins to stutter as its dumping, up loading and dumping vRam again, the game still had playable frame rates, over 30FPS minimum.

MY GPU Not exactly a power house, and i have it running on a mild overclock, it will run BF4 @ 1200 / 1600 all day every day.

GPU's of the 280X and GTX 770 caliber need more than 2GB

This Side Up · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:12

OKay, on the subject of VRAM, would this allow the 760 4GB model to effectively "out perform" the 770 2GB model as it has twice the VRAM?

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:14

This Side Up said:
OKay, on the subject of VRAM, would this allow the 760 4GB model to effectively "out perform" the 770 2GB model as it has twice the VRAM?

I don't think the GTX 760 has the muscle to run BF4 or any game comfortably to need 4GB, unless your running 2 of them, which is really why they are available in 4GB form.

This Side Up · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:22

All reviews I've read on the GTX 770 vs 280x puts them "about even" in terms of various in-game tests, with the 280x edging slightly ahead in terms of BF4 (an AMD optimised) and in some games running silly high resolutions.

This is confusing!

psychas · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:23

760 slower then 670 and 770 is faster 680 so the gap between 760 and 770 is bigger then 670 and 680.

i would go with 770 great card and overclock it .

Kaapstad · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:29

This Side Up said:
OKay, on the subject of VRAM, would this allow the 760 4GB model to effectively "out perform" the 770 2GB model as it has twice the VRAM?

A 2gb per GPU GTX 690 is more than twice as fast as a GTX 760 and does not run out of vram at resolutions up to 1600p.

Leave the GTX 760 alone, it does not have the muscle to use 2gb of vram properly let alone 4gb of it.

The GTX 770 is a nice well rounded card, go for it.

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:29

This Side Up said:
All reviews I've read on the GTX 770 vs 280x puts them "about even" in terms of various in-game tests, with the 280x edging slightly ahead in terms of BF4 (an AMD optimised) and in some games running silly high resolutions.

This is confusing!

I did say the 280X is at least as fast as the GTX 770, while the performance scales better as things get more demanding, higher res, the highest settings.

They are about the same price, they perform about evenly unless you push them harder, the 280X has a Gig more vRam. which in BF4 would be a must for me when replacing my ageing 7870XT

Personally its a no-brainer to me, but thats me, you should pick what you want, they are both great cards.

This Side Up · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:33

I notice AMD has this 'Mantle' thing, just how does that work (i.e. is AMD CPU required?) and does that make an actual difference?

humbug · 29 Jan 2014 at 17:39

This Side Up said:
I notice AMD has this 'Mantle' thing, just how does that work (i.e. is AMD CPU required?) and does that make an actual difference?

Mantle Works with any CPU, Intel or AMD. it makes no difference.

Mantle is difficult to explain in a few sentences.

What it does is replace Direct X, which is very inefficient. its will increase performance on any GCN based AMD GPU (HD 7### series and later) in Mantle enabled games like BF4 (Mantle patch coming very soon we hope) and Thief, + 18 other games currently in development.