GTX 770, 780 or 780 Ti

[Cryptic Llama]

I currently have a GTX 670 (see my profile desciption for my full PC specs) and would not have normally considered upgrading for a fair while yet. However my cousin is building his first gaming rig and wants to keep his budget down. I thought it could be a good value option for him to buy my GTX 670 at a large discount. He is interested in that deal, though still not sure.

If I do upgrade my GPU should I go with the GTX 770, 780 or 780 Ti? My monitor is 1920x1200 60Hz IPS. I'd like to stick with Nvidia for now due to gsync though feel free to (reasonably) agrue the case for AMD.

I don't have a fixed budget per se but would obviously prefer to spend less. However if I am going to upgrade my GPU "early" I would like a decent increase in performance. The 770 doesn't look that much faster then the 670 as it is basically an improved 680, though then again it is a lot cheaper. Are the sizeable jumps in performance between the cards worth the money? I know I'm not gaming at a very high resolution though I would like a degree of "futureproofing" (I know - there's no such thing as being futureproof but you know what I mean) for more demanding games which I'd like to be able to run and max setting (I'm already having to lower some settings in a number of games), especially with the new consoles arriving helping to push development.

Thanks in advance and sorry for the long post - just wanted to explan my thoughts so far.

Edit: Also I'm guessing only having PCIe 2.0 and not 3.0 won't have significant effect, will it? Also any suggested manufacturers' cards? The Gigabyte Windforce and MSI Twin Frozr seem good.

[Rehrei]

the gtx770 is a good choice. just bought one.

but if you want to keep the GPU for more than 2-3 years you should go with the amd R9 280(x) because of the 3 GB VRAM

the 780(TI) isn´t worth the money (except you need the 10% power)

[Dr. Gregory House, M.D.]

Publicado originalmente por xasd01:

780 Ti but if you have PCIe 2.0 I will not consider to upgrade

This is only an issue if he's considering SLI (Which he's not)
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/378190-33-pcie-video-card

[LoTekRabbit]

Publicado originalmente por xasd01:

780 Ti but if you have PCIe 2.0 I will not consider to upgrade

There is no performance difference between a 780ti being on a 2.0 16x lane or a 3.0 16x lane.

[Alldentus]

780ti

[Cryptic Llama]

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

Publicado originalmente por xasd01:

780 Ti but if you have PCIe 2.0 I will not consider to upgrade

This is only an issue if he's considering SLI (Which he's not)
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/378190-33-pcie-video-card

Publicado originalmente por V10club:

Publicado originalmente por xasd01:

780 Ti but if you have PCIe 2.0 I will not consider to upgrade

There is no performance difference between a 780ti being on a 2.0 16x lane or a 3.0 16x lane.

That's good to know, I suspected it'd be OK but wasn't sure.

Publicado originalmente por Rehrei:

the gtx770 is a good choice. just bought one.

but if you want to keep the GPU for more than 2-3 years you should go with the amd R9 280(x) because of the 3 GB VRAM

the 780(TI) isn´t worth the money (except you need the 10% power)

The extra VRAM is nice, especially for high res textures. The 780 and 780 Ti both also have 3GB which is another reason to consider them over the 770. As for the AMD reccomendation I am not so confident about AMD, but as I said in my original post feel free to reasonably argue there case (though I'd hate to see this turn into a troll infested green vs red flame war). The 280x seems to perform poorer than the 770 and is similar price. So it seems the only advantage would be the extra VRAM which I could get with a 4GB 770.

My cousin is now fairly sure he wants to by mine. As for which I'd get I'm still undecided. I apoligies if I am taking a while to come to a decision but that much money and being something I'd use every day does deserve careful consideration. I am reading and considering your comments which I do appreciate. I hope this topic is useful for people with a similar dillema.

[Dr. Gregory House, M.D.]

Publicado originalmente por Cryptic Llama:

The extra VRAM is nice, especially for high res textures. The 780 and 780 Ti both also have 3GB which is another reason to consider them over the 770. As for the AMD reccomendation I am not so confident about AMD, but as I said in my original post feel free to reasonably argue there case (though I'd hate to see this turn into a troll infested green vs red flame war). The 280x seems to perform poorer than the 770 and is similar price. So it seems the only advantage would be the extra VRAM which I could get with a 4GB 770.

My cousin is now fairly sure he wants to by mine. As for which I'd get I'm still undecided. I apoligies if I am taking a while to come to a decision but that much money and being something I'd use every day does deserve careful consideration. I am reading and considering your comments which I do appreciate. I hope this topic is useful for people with a similar dillema.

There is no need for more than 2GB of Vram, unless you plan on gaming on more than 1 monitor and/or higher than 1080p resolution. Even on the best looking games I usually max 1.5 GB of Vram used

[Cryptic Llama]

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

Publicado originalmente por Cryptic Llama:

The extra VRAM is nice, especially for high res textures. The 780 and 780 Ti both also have 3GB which is another reason to consider them over the 770. As for the AMD reccomendation I am not so confident about AMD, but as I said in my original post feel free to reasonably argue there case (though I'd hate to see this turn into a troll infested green vs red flame war). The 280x seems to perform poorer than the 770 and is similar price. So it seems the only advantage would be the extra VRAM which I could get with a 4GB 770.

My cousin is now fairly sure he wants to by mine. As for which I'd get I'm still undecided. I apoligies if I am taking a while to come to a decision but that much money and being something I'd use every day does deserve careful consideration. I am reading and considering your comments which I do appreciate. I hope this topic is useful for people with a similar dillema.

There is no need for more than 2GB of Vram, unless you plan on gaming on more than 1 monitor and/or higher than 1080p resolution. Even on the best looking games I usually max 1.5 GB of Vram used

That's good to know, though will that change shortly with "next gen" games?

[Dr. Gregory House, M.D.]

Publicado originalmente por Cryptic Llama:

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

There is no need for more than 2GB of Vram, unless you plan on gaming on more than 1 monitor and/or higher than 1080p resolution. Even on the best looking games I usually max 1.5 GB of Vram used

That's good to know, though will that change shortly with "next gen" games?

It's entirely possible. No one can say now but BF4 really didn't show much change in FPS from 2GB of Vram to 3GB of Vram

[Gianni]

Ok I reccomend going with the Evga gtx 780 with ACX cooling.
1 because this is a good price point between the two and you will notice a pretty good performance increase over your gtx 670
2 Evga has good customer support and there new ACX cooling design is very well built. It cools the cards very nice and does that a pretty low noise.
3 the 780 is smak dab in the middle performance wise between the 770 and 780 ti
4 You will be set for a while and I guarantee that you a get a good bang for your buck going this route.
Here is the link to the Geforce gtx 780 that i reccomend by Evga
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130918

[LoTekRabbit]

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

There is no need for more than 2GB of Vram, unless you plan on gaming on more than 1 monitor and/or higher than 1080p resolution. Even on the best looking games I usually max 1.5 GB of Vram used

That's incorrect. Battlefield 4 uses more than 2 Gigs VRAM @ 1080P, Ultra Settings, 4xMSAA.

Crysis 3 uses more than 2 Gigs @1080P, Ultra settings as well.

A heavily modded Skyrim can easily use 3 Gigs and above.

Expect more games in 2014 to surpass 2 Gigs @ 1080P.

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

Publicado originalmente por Cryptic Llama:

That's good to know, though will that change shortly with "next gen" games?

It's entirely possible. No one can say now but BF4 really didn't show much change in FPS from 2GB of Vram to 3GB of Vram

Because it's not just the FPS that's affected. Having insufficient VRAM will cause stuttering and crashes.

[Dr. Gregory House, M.D.]

Publicado originalmente por V10club:

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

There is no need for more than 2GB of Vram, unless you plan on gaming on more than 1 monitor and/or higher than 1080p resolution. Even on the best looking games I usually max 1.5 GB of Vram used

That's incorrect. Battlefield 4 uses more than 2 Gigs VRAM @ 1080P, Ultra Settings, 4xMSAA.

Crysis 3 uses more than 2 Gigs @1080P, Ultra settings as well.

A heavily modded Skyrim can easily use 3 Gigs and above.

Expect more games in 2014 to surpass 2 Gigs @ 1080P.

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

It's entirely possible. No one can say now but BF4 really didn't show much change in FPS from 2GB of Vram to 3GB of Vram

Because it's not the FPS that's directly affected. Having insufficient VRAM will cause stuttering and crashes.

I said I usually max, I don't play BF4, I'm using the internet for referrence. Also, using modded Skyrim as an example immediately renders your arguement invalid, I didn't once mention mods. Plus, when I do use afterburner to monitor my GPU, I only notice maybe 1GB-1.5GB of Vram in use. And yes, I know low Vram is linked to stutters and crashes, but it also can indirectly affect fps due to this.

[LoTekRabbit]

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

I said I usually max, I don't play BF4, I'm using the internet for referrence. Also, using modded Skyrim as an example immediately renders your arguement invalid, I didn't once mention mods. Plus, when I do use afterburner to monitor my GPU, I only notice maybe 1GB-1.5GB of Vram in use. And yes, I know low Vram is linked to stutters and crashes, but it also can indirectly affect fps due to this.

One example that you don't care for does not render my argument invalid when my argument is factual.

You might not play BF4 but OP might be interested in the game or already plays it. You might not care for a modded Skyrim but OP might. Recommending someone to buy a high end card with only 2 Gigs of RAM is just not a good recommendation and Nvidia is stupid to even release cards priced this high with only 2 Gigs. Looking at some of the games in 2014 you can easily see them passing 2 Gigs @ 1080P

I remember all the stuttering complaints DICE received for BF3 from people with 2 Gig GTX 680's. The solution given by the Technical Director of Frostbite was to lower MSAA levels if playing on Ultra because the game used more than 2 Gigs. That's a title from over two years ago.

The fact is a 770 is not much of a upgrade from a 670. If OP wants to see an actual difference he should go for either a 780 or 780ti.

[Dr. Gregory House, M.D.]

Publicado originalmente por V10club:

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

I said I usually max, I don't play BF4, I'm using the internet for referrence. Also, using modded Skyrim as an example immediately renders your arguement invalid, I didn't once mention mods. Plus, when I do use afterburner to monitor my GPU, I only notice maybe 1GB-1.5GB of Vram in use. And yes, I know low Vram is linked to stutters and crashes, but it also can indirectly affect fps due to this.

One example that you don't care for does not render my argument invalid when my argument is factual.

You might not play BF4 but OP might be interested in the game or already plays it. Recommending someone to buy a high end card with only 2 Gigs of RAM is not a good recommendation and Nvidia is stupid to even release cards priced this high with only 2 Gigs.

No it's not. Their 800 series is slated to release next year, which will be their first launch after "next gen" consoles, which means they will be ready for next gen gaming. Plus, they're good budget cards for those of us who don't have enough for, "
Memory: 16 GB Patriot 1866 MHz @ 10-11-10-30-2
GPU: Evga GTX 780 Ti ."
You do realise some of us have budgets right?

And yeah it does, when I have facts to prove your arguement invalid, such as me not mentioning mods, it's proven invalid. Law of the internet pal

[LoTekRabbit]

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

No it's not. Their 800 series is slated to release next year, which will be their first launch after "next gen" consoles, which means they will be ready for next gen gaming. Plus, they're good budget cards for those of us who don't have enough for, "
Memory: 16 GB Patriot 1866 MHz @ 10-11-10-30-2
GPU: Evga GTX 780 Ti ."
You do realise some of us have budgets right?

And yeah it does, when I have facts to prove your arguement invalid, such as me not mentioning mods, it's proven invalid. Law of the internet pal

I don't know why you're trying to bring my own rig into this. That was completely irrelevant and served no purpose to your argument because AMD has been releasing mid-high end cards with over 2 Gigs of VRAM for a couple of years now.

This is not a matter of "budgets" if one side is already offering that feature for a cheaper price point. It is stupid of Nvidia to offer $400 cards with 2 Gigs.

And what facts? I don't care if you didn't mention mods. You are not the center of the Universe. What applies to you does not apply to the people you are giving advice to. Step out of your narrow pov and realise that OP might care about this. You don't but other people do.

OP doesn't give a damn when the 800 series is coming out. He isn't going to spend hundreds of dollars for a card only to dump it for an 800 series 6 or so months later. He wants something that he will put to good use for a decent amount of time and a 2 Gig card does not offer that.

[Dr. Gregory House, M.D.]

Publicado originalmente por V10club:

Publicado originalmente por DomCobb1:

No it's not. Their 800 series is slated to release next year, which will be their first launch after "next gen" consoles, which means they will be ready for next gen gaming. Plus, they're good budget cards for those of us who don't have enough for, "
Memory: 16 GB Patriot 1866 MHz @ 10-11-10-30-2
GPU: Evga GTX 780 Ti ."
You do realise some of us have budgets right?

And yeah it does, when I have facts to prove your arguement invalid, such as me not mentioning mods, it's proven invalid. Law of the internet pal

I don't know why you're trying to bring my own rig into this. That was completely irrelevant and served no purpose to your argument because AMD has been releasing mid-high end cards with over 2 Gigs of VRAM for a couple of years now.

This is not a matter of "budgets if one side is already offering that feature for a cheaper price point. It is stupid of Nvidia to offer $400 cards with 2 Gigs.

And what facts? I don't care if you didn't mention mods. You are not the center of the Universe/ What applies to you does not apply to the people you are giving advice to. Step out of your narrow pov and realise that OP might care about this. You don't but other people do.

It's really not tho. You do realize up to "next gen" consoles most -let me repeat that so you don't use it against me later- MOST games only used up to 2GB of Vram on max settings on 1080p right? And the rule of video cards is AMD does it first, Nvidia perfects it, meaning AMD is cheaper but you're paying for the performance with Nvidia. There was no reason to have more than 2GB of Vram up until maybe a year or two ago when 1440p monitors became a reality and dual/triple monitors did too. And I'm not imagining the world revolves around me, I'm being realistic. I don't want OP to pay for more than he's gonna need. Why buy a 430 Scuderia if you only drive half a mile to work every day?