-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Which graphics card for my system - 770 v 7970
- Thread starter Xcandyman
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 1,205
A 7950@1100mhz is not noticeably faster than a 770. Its about equal to a stock 7970GE which in most cases is a bit slower than a stock 770. Its also as always a silicone lottery when it comes to overclocking. I had 3 7950s that was unstable at 1100 on air. Added to the fact 770s can also be overclocked, these 2 cards shouldn't really be compared as equals.
Last edited:
Give me a game that uses more 2gb of vram and gives acceptable fps on a single screen using a Titan, you have an open goal take your shot.
I don't think we will ever see it as my Titan is just not fast enough, perhaps you can think of an AMD card that is.
Max payne 3 max out use about 2GB if not.more on a single monitor i say that becaus i used to play it on a MSI GTX580 lightning XE with 3GB vram ... Simple as that the more the vram you got the better it is.
Yeah, no. A GE 7970 is noticeably faster than a 770.
I've had 4x 7950s that were stable at 1200Mhz on air.
My current 2 are stable at 1300Mhz on water.
You'll be fine, all the 7950s I've had have come with a 6 pin to 8 pin adapter as well.
Give me a game that uses more 2gb of vram and gives acceptable fps on a single screen using a Titan, you have an open goal take your shot.
I don't think we will ever see it as my Titan is just not fast enough, perhaps you can think of an AMD card that is.
As I've said, if you understand the workings of 3D graphics, you wouldn't be saying this.
So there is a different between a 7950 @1100 and a 7950GE
thought theu were both OC version of 7950 and i haven't heard yet of a single 7950 that does not oc at 1100 on air ...weird
Max payne 3 max out use about 2GB if not.more on a single monitor i say that becaus i used to play it on a MSI GTX580 lightning XE with 3GB vram ... Simple as that the more the vram you got the better it is.
I had this the other month so to prove a point I bought a copy of max payne 3 and measured the amount of vram used, it was nowhere near 2gb of vram. What the game does do is it greatly overstates how much memory it needs.
Yes I do understand the workings of 3d graphics
I also understaand the value of a practical test rather than pages and pages of theoretical waffle.
Show me a game that uses more than 2gb of vram on a single Titan running on a single screen, at least the last guy I said that to a month or so ago said max payne 3, which I tested and it came nowhere near.
Come on show me a game that uses more than 2gb of vram on a Titan and gives acceptable fps
Remember graphics cards are there to play games in the real world, theorecticle waffle is not relivant.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 1,205
Not according to most reviews. I've also had all 3 cards myself - 7950, 7970 and currently a 770 and tested all of them at both stock and various clocks with in-game benchmarks and 3dmark/Unigine. My scores reflect that of reviews which indicates they are fairly accurate. At stock, the 770 was the overall winner if its not limited by bandwidth.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_770_review.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_TF_Gaming/1.html
How is it noticeably faster?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 1,205
So there is a different between a 7950 @1100 and a 7950GE
Sorry I meant 7970GE.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 126
I have a gtx770 & play games like BF3, Bioshock, Metro Last light. I play on 1080p @ ultra and i rarely go below 60fps, BF3 hovers around 120fps > 50fps lowest with lots of action on a 64 player map, Bioshock is high 90s > 120fps, Ive not tested teh fps of metro but its around 60fps on the highest setting.
Ive not found 2gb limiting but i only have a 1080p monitor, if you play any of these games or similar you wont be disappointed.
Ive not found 2gb limiting but i only have a 1080p monitor, if you play any of these games or similar you wont be disappointed.
I use a 1600p monitor and I am safe using that and 2gb vram per gpu
BF3 maxed uses about 1.8gb @1600p
The only game I have seen use more than 3gb of vram maxed @1600p is Crysis 3 and you need 4 Titans in sli to get 80 fps. If you run it on a single Titan you get about 22 fps which means you have to lower the settings which in turn lowers vram usage to get playable fps.
Anyone buying a card with 2gb of vram is not going to have a problem unless they want to run at resolutions like 5780 x 1080 in sli
Max payne 3 max out use about 2GB if not.more on a single monitor i say that becaus i used to play it on a MSI GTX580 lightning XE with 3GB vram ... Simple as that the more the vram you got the better it is.
Max payne 3 @1080p on my Titans
I have also ran this game at 1600p on a pair of GTX 690s maxed out and memory usage was under the 2gb the 690s come with.
On the Titans @1600p they use about 2.2gb of vram but some of that is being cached, this is easy to prove as the 690s using the same settings have no problems and don't run out of vram.
The point is that 2Gb is really tight on the part of Nvidia. If you run 4k and multiscreen set ups in games like BF3, Crysis 3 then your gonna be compromised. The new gen of PC games BF4, Rome 2 and possible others will slaughter Vram if graphics are set to Max. Nvidia have got 4Gb versions of gtx770 and possibly the gtx760 already available, they obviously know there are problems in high res and/or multscreen setups. Why reviewers dont make this glaringly obvious stinks!!!
Either way I would recommend a 3gb-4gb Tahiti or Kepler over 2Gb Kepler all day long.
You buy a 670,680 or 760 or 770 because you want good single card performance which you get but when you sli and think about high resolution and/or surround in the top tier games its not right for Nvidia to sell a restricted 2Gb when they can sell 4Gb probably at the same price point.
Also as previously mentioned, the Xbox one and PS4 have 8GB GDDR5 and DDR3 respectively this tells us that games will use a lot more hardware resource in the next year or so. Microsoft are talking about cloud based processing for graphics that are high latency (do not require superfast rendering) to support the system resources, where do you think the rendered cloud data will be put ill give you a clue not the cpu cache.
2x7950 (1150Mhz) with a 3930 (at 3.4Ghz,4.5Ghz and 5.0Ghz) does in fact run BF3 MP at Ultra settings in Eyeinfininty at 5760x1080p (3 Monitors) at 70fps min.
Guy with the Titan your card is obviously in a different legue 20-30% more frames than a 770, 7970-7950 in Crysis 3 or BF3 and a huge Vram and memory bus bandwidth advantage which you paid for dearly of course...(Your card is the King, but i'd prefer 2x7950's personally)
Someone said a comment to me the other day which i'm gonna quote
Buy Nvidia if your Rich or Buy AMD if your poor.......There was no qualification on performance...................
Any way this is a good Good Debate............
Either way I would recommend a 3gb-4gb Tahiti or Kepler over 2Gb Kepler all day long.
You buy a 670,680 or 760 or 770 because you want good single card performance which you get but when you sli and think about high resolution and/or surround in the top tier games its not right for Nvidia to sell a restricted 2Gb when they can sell 4Gb probably at the same price point.
Also as previously mentioned, the Xbox one and PS4 have 8GB GDDR5 and DDR3 respectively this tells us that games will use a lot more hardware resource in the next year or so. Microsoft are talking about cloud based processing for graphics that are high latency (do not require superfast rendering) to support the system resources, where do you think the rendered cloud data will be put ill give you a clue not the cpu cache.
2x7950 (1150Mhz) with a 3930 (at 3.4Ghz,4.5Ghz and 5.0Ghz) does in fact run BF3 MP at Ultra settings in Eyeinfininty at 5760x1080p (3 Monitors) at 70fps min.
Guy with the Titan your card is obviously in a different legue 20-30% more frames than a 770, 7970-7950 in Crysis 3 or BF3 and a huge Vram and memory bus bandwidth advantage which you paid for dearly of course...(Your card is the King, but i'd prefer 2x7950's personally)
Someone said a comment to me the other day which i'm gonna quote
Buy Nvidia if your Rich or Buy AMD if your poor.......There was no qualification on performance...................
Any way this is a good Good Debate............
Last edited:
Yes its all well and good on one monitor, but if you buy another GTx770 (when the prices drop) which is an amazing card and sli it, and then think right im absolutely loving this 160fps in BF3 Mp i want to use 3 monitors and enjoy this in surround your gonna be pistright off....
Nvidia should give you guys the 3-4Gb!!! IMO
Taken from the Battlefield 4 Alpha.
Couple of things to note. The game has a lot more to come in the way of optimization, so those vram usage requirements might come down. I also doubt there is much caching going on here as i find caching only occurs once a new level is loading, at least for me on 3gb at 1440p. However you have to remember that the alpha has a lot of textures missing so you could counter the optimization angle by saying those requirements will go up once the levels have full textures available rather than blank textures like in the picture below.
If that above chart is true, then it might well be brown pants time for our 2gb friends and they will have to start sacrificing image quality details. AMD will be hoping this is the case i bet.
Couple of things to note. The game has a lot more to come in the way of optimization, so those vram usage requirements might come down. I also doubt there is much caching going on here as i find caching only occurs once a new level is loading, at least for me on 3gb at 1440p. However you have to remember that the alpha has a lot of textures missing so you could counter the optimization angle by saying those requirements will go up once the levels have full textures available rather than blank textures like in the picture below.
If that above chart is true, then it might well be brown pants time for our 2gb friends and they will have to start sacrificing image quality details. AMD will be hoping this is the case i bet.
Last edited:
Taken from the Battlefield 4 Alpha.
Couple of things to note. The game has a lot more to come in the way of optimization, so those vram usage requirements might come down. I also doubt there is much caching going on here as i find caching only occurs once a new level is loading, at least for me on 3gb at 1440p. However you have to remember that the alpha has a lot of textures missing so you could counter the optimization angle by saying those requirements will go up once the levels have full textures available rather than blank textures like in the picture below.
If that above chart is true, then it might well be brown pants time for our 2gb friends and they will have to start sacrificing image quality details.
Great post, can you share the link please.
And the worrying thing is that this is 4k resolution, so at 5760x1080p its gonna hit a brick wall.
2Gb should be fine on a single 1080p monitor!! Graphics like that need higher res to fully appreciate the beauty, quality and splender of scenary, I cant wait for this game...
Do the AMD cards use less memory resource...Why is this the case here?
AMD will win if this table to true and not a folly!!!
Last edited:
Taken from the Battlefield 4 Alpha.
Couple of things to note. The game has a lot more to come in the way of optimization, so those vram usage requirements might come down. I also doubt there is much caching going on here as i find caching only occurs once a new level is loading, at least for me on 3gb at 1440p. However you have to remember that the alpha has a lot of textures missing so you could counter the optimization angle by saying those requirements will go up once the levels have full textures available rather than blank textures like in the picture below.
There is a slight ommission here, no 2GB cards were tested at the same settings.
BF3 shows very similar memory usage on 3GB+ cards but lower usage on 2GB cards at exactly the same settings.
For example this is the reported memory usage I am seeing (have seen) in BF3; Full Ultra settings at 3600x1920:
GTX670SLI - 1.98GB
HD7970 - 2.5GB
GTX780 - 2.4-2.5GB
What we really need to know is how mcuh VRAM is actually required, not how much the game happens to be using at any one point.
Caching only occurs when the levels change. I see my vram usage slowly creeping up as the second, third and fourth map loads. I very much doubt there is a lot of caching going on here as its a benchmark run. Unless they've now changed the behaviour of the game to cache vram for maps that are not currently being played.