Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2gb Vs. Gigabyte GTX 770 4gb

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 18, 2013 3:42:40 PM

Im looking to upgrade to a 770 for my new build. I have everything else picked out, and the graphics card is my final step. That being said, I am looking to overclock, so i'll obviously need adequate cooling fom these two cards. So, which is better: Twin Frozr IV or Windforce 3x? Also, does the 4gb of VRAM on the gigabyte 770 make it a better deal than the Lightning? Essentially, for the same price, which card would I get the best performance/time out of?

More about : msi gtx 770 lightning 2gb gigabyte gtx 770 4gb

a c 91 U Graphics card
June 18, 2013 3:45:13 PM

the twin frozer IV is slightly better IMO

also you don't need 4GB of VRAM. but you also don't need the lightning, it doesn't give you that much extra overclocking headroom and no one actually runs their build at max OC for daily use. just get the gaming edition from MSI. I think it's the best deal out there for a 770 (unless you just get the reference board)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 18, 2013 4:42:35 PM

Here is how I "personally" rank them:

EVGA GTX 770 ACX

Asus GTX 770 DirectCU2

MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr

The amount of VRAM only improves things if you're playing at resolutions higher than 1920x1080 as of right now. Future games might change things. But for now 2GB is sufficient for 1920x1080 or lower.

EDIT: Also, the EVGA ACX models are 10" in length. The MSI Twin Frozr is 10.24" long (says NewEgg.com). The Gigabyte Windforce model is 11" in length. So keep these dimensions in mind depending on how roomy your case is.

Also, some of the MSI models (Lightning, Gaming Edition) require two 8pin PCI Connectors. Supposedly more headroom for overclocking. But important to note.
m
3
l
Related resources
June 18, 2013 5:17:00 PM

jerreece said:
Here is how I "personally" rank them:

EVGA GTX 770 ACX

Asus GTX 770 DirectCU2

MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr

The amount of VRAM only improves things if you're playing at resolutions higher than 1920x1080 as of right now. Future games might change things. But for now 2GB is sufficient for 1920x1080 or lower.

EDIT: Also, the EVGA ACX models are 10" in length. The MSI Twin Frozr is 10.24" long (says NewEgg.com). The Gigabyte Windforce model is 11" in length. So keep these dimensions in mind depending on how roomy your case is.

Also, some of the MSI models (Lightning, Gaming Edition) require two 8pin PCI Connectors. Supposedly more headroom for overclocking. But important to note.


I'll take your advice, but I was under the impression that VRAM effects AA levels also? Is that correct?

m
0
l
June 19, 2013 6:35:08 AM

Wait till the GTX 770 4GB is actually out, 4GB may become important in the following years if game producers push HD textures, I'm playing Skyrim and with the Textures packs and other HD Mods I already completely saturate my 1.28GB Vram of my current card, sure 2Gb is a bit more but I'm not even installing all the Mods I want, for me my next GC needs at least 3GB of RAM.
m
0
l
June 19, 2013 8:40:10 AM

Strunf said:
Wait till the GTX 770 4GB is actually out, 4GB may become important in the following years if game producers push HD textures, I'm playing Skyrim and with the Textures packs and other HD Mods I already completely saturate my 1.28GB Vram of my current card, sure 2Gb is a bit more but I'm not even installing all the Mods I want, for me my next GC needs at least 3GB of RAM.


That's what I was worried about. It is also the reason why im probably going to go Gigabyte's 4gb over MSI's Lightning (since they're the same price). But, will there be any cooling differences between the two?

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 19, 2013 8:49:17 AM

Why get half the memory if they're the same price? That's absolutely insane. If you were paying 20% more for the extra memory then fair enough, but to turn down effectively free memory would be idiocy.
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 19, 2013 8:54:04 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Why get half the memory if they're the same price? That's absolutely insane. If you were paying 20% more for the extra memory then fair enough, but to turn down effectively free memory would be idiocy.


but why are they the same price I wonder... OP, which vendor are you buying from and which country are you in?
m
0
l
June 19, 2013 8:56:19 AM

And it has virtuially the same idle/boost core clock as MSI's lightning edition, which makes paying for less just seem plain stupid. The only thing that's holding me back is Gigibyte's Windforce design.
m
0
l
June 19, 2013 8:57:07 AM

Also, I'm buying from Newegg, and I am in the U.S.A.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 19, 2013 8:57:41 AM

Windforce coolers are very good. Don't worry about that - Gigabyte are a quality manufacturer.
m
0
l
June 19, 2013 9:11:36 AM

Yeah, but I don't have any problem paying the extra $50 for another 2gb of VRAM. This is because I would like to advance from 1 monitor in the future, as well as I like to have my AA levels maxed. So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going with Gigabyte's 4gb edition.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 19, 2013 10:41:00 AM

Sounds like a good choice to me. Where did the $50 come from though? I thought they're same price?
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 19, 2013 10:52:04 AM

forscience97 said:
Yeah, but I don't have any problem paying the extra $50 for another 2gb of VRAM. This is because I would like to advance from 1 monitor in the future, as well as I like to have my AA levels maxed. So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going with Gigabyte's 4gb edition.


sure... it's your money... all we're trying to tell you is that the extra 2gb of VRAM really doesn't buy you anything extra...
m
0
l
June 19, 2013 10:56:56 AM

vmem said:
forscience97 said:
Yeah, but I don't have any problem paying the extra $50 for another 2gb of VRAM. This is because I would like to advance from 1 monitor in the future, as well as I like to have my AA levels maxed. So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going with Gigabyte's 4gb edition.


sure... it's your money... all we're trying to tell you is that the extra 2gb of VRAM really doesn't buy you anything extra...


Go with the Gigabyte. That MSI Lighting is worthless unless you are going to put a water block and a custom Liquid cooled system, then you might be able to churn out 50-100Mhz more of an over clock then air cooled.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 19, 2013 8:36:17 PM

kyleamos12 said:
vmem said:
forscience97 said:
Yeah, but I don't have any problem paying the extra $50 for another 2gb of VRAM. This is because I would like to advance from 1 monitor in the future, as well as I like to have my AA levels maxed. So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going with Gigabyte's 4gb edition.


sure... it's your money... all we're trying to tell you is that the extra 2gb of VRAM really doesn't buy you anything extra...


Go with the Gigabyte. That MSI Lighting is worthless unless you are going to put a water block and a custom Liquid cooled system, then you might be able to churn out 50-100Mhz more of an over clock then air cooled.


So I guess you live in the desert? I have the msi 770 and im overclocked 125 mhz with air cooling. i dont even break 70c when im playing far cry 3 on ultra. you don't need a water block.
m
0
l
June 19, 2013 9:06:03 PM

pyr0_m4n said:
kyleamos12 said:
vmem said:
forscience97 said:
Yeah, but I don't have any problem paying the extra $50 for another 2gb of VRAM. This is because I would like to advance from 1 monitor in the future, as well as I like to have my AA levels maxed. So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going with Gigabyte's 4gb edition.


sure... it's your money... all we're trying to tell you is that the extra 2gb of VRAM really doesn't buy you anything extra...


Go with the Gigabyte. That MSI Lighting is worthless unless you are going to put a water block and a custom Liquid cooled system, then you might be able to churn out 50-100Mhz more of an over clock then air cooled.


So I guess you live in the desert? I have the msi 770 and im overclocked 125 mhz with air cooling. i dont even break 70c when im playing far cry 3 on ultra. you don't need a water block.


Does this mean that MSI's cooling is significantly better than Gigabytes? Because I still have yet to decide, which one has a better performance to price ratio (theoretically speaking)?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 19, 2013 9:26:13 PM

forscience97 said:
pyr0_m4n said:
kyleamos12 said:
vmem said:
forscience97 said:
Yeah, but I don't have any problem paying the extra $50 for another 2gb of VRAM. This is because I would like to advance from 1 monitor in the future, as well as I like to have my AA levels maxed. So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going with Gigabyte's 4gb edition.


sure... it's your money... all we're trying to tell you is that the extra 2gb of VRAM really doesn't buy you anything extra...


Go with the Gigabyte. That MSI Lighting is worthless unless you are going to put a water block and a custom Liquid cooled system, then you might be able to churn out 50-100Mhz more of an over clock then air cooled.


So I guess you live in the desert? I have the msi 770 and im overclocked 125 mhz with air cooling. i dont even break 70c when im playing far cry 3 on ultra. you don't need a water block.


Does this mean that MSI's cooling is significantly better than Gigabytes? Because I still have yet to decide, which one has a better performance to price ratio (theoretically speaking)?


I love my msi. put that aside however, msi and gigabyte really dont have much difference cooling wise. jsut remember that msi can match gigabytes cooling level using one less fan.
m
0
l
June 19, 2013 9:42:15 PM

pyr0_m4n said:
forscience97 said:
pyr0_m4n said:
kyleamos12 said:
vmem said:
forscience97 said:
Yeah, but I don't have any problem paying the extra $50 for another 2gb of VRAM. This is because I would like to advance from 1 monitor in the future, as well as I like to have my AA levels maxed. So, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm going with Gigabyte's 4gb edition.


sure... it's your money... all we're trying to tell you is that the extra 2gb of VRAM really doesn't buy you anything extra...


Go with the Gigabyte. That MSI Lighting is worthless unless you are going to put a water block and a custom Liquid cooled system, then you might be able to churn out 50-100Mhz more of an over clock then air cooled.


So I guess you live in the desert? I have the msi 770 and im overclocked 125 mhz with air cooling. i dont even break 70c when im playing far cry 3 on ultra. you don't need a water block.


Does this mean that MSI's cooling is significantly better than Gigabytes? Because I still have yet to decide, which one has a better performance to price ratio (theoretically speaking)?


I love my msi. put that aside however, msi and gigabyte really dont have much difference cooling wise. jsut remember that msi can match gigabytes cooling level using one less fan.


From what I've read, in most cases the Twin Frozr IV's cool more efficiently at a 6-8 degree Celsius differential. While I love MSI (And I believe that the lightning is a better quality GPU than the Gigabyte), it seems that 4gb of VRAM may be worth it for the same price. Also, would I even be able to tell the difference between 4x MSAA and 8x MSAA? Because that's what I intend the extra VRAM to go towards.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2013 1:28:41 AM

Nah both modes look the same. The strongest argument for 4GB is for next year's games and the year after etc. Plus the fact they're the same price :-) 4GB models usually cost a LOT more (at the high end anyway).
m
0
l
June 21, 2013 10:05:27 AM

BigMack70 said:
There has been no benchmark or review which has shown any advantage to a 4GB card over a 2GB one, even at ridiculous triple screen resolutions with SLI.

Get the 2GB card.


Cause it doesn't matter if you don't use over 2GB of VRAM, even with 3 screens you may not go over it... unless of course you install HD Textures Mods and/or increase the AA settings.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/g...

Also the next Gen consoles will push higher quality Textures, the PS4 will get 7GB of Ram just for the Games (1GB for the OS), if 4GB is spent on purely non Graphical data it will still leave 3GB of "VRAM". The fact is that there's no way around it if your game uses more than 2GB of Ram he will trash your GC regardless of how powerful it is.

Skyrim is one of the very few games if not the only that allows such a high level of Modding that you can go over 2GB of VRAM... I play Skyrim so yeah paying 10-20% more for the extra 2GB is a non issue.
m
0
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
June 21, 2013 8:15:50 PM

BigMack70 said:
Outside of anecdotal evidence about skyrim, nothing but speculation supports the idea that you get a performance advantage from 4GB GK104 cards over 2GB ones. The data shows that currently, the cards even in sli run out of power long before they could use the doubled vram


+1

also, take a step back and consider this. the 770 is an awesome card for it's performance/dollar at the top-end right now, but it is not THE top-end card. you're spending an extra 10-20% for extra memory in preparation of games coming next year that will 'possible' make use of the 4gb of vram? you realize that chances are, the 770 itself will fail to keep up before you run into a vram limitation right?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2013 2:18:49 AM

Did you even look at Strunf's link above? 40fps on the 4GB vs 3fps on the 2GB. 40fps doesn't sound to me like it's run out of power. Also is it only speculation if it's based on over 15 years of PC gaming history? We know 1GB used to be more than ample. We know that before that, 512MB was ample. And 256MB, 128MB etc. Why are people assuming that graphical advance will suddenly slam on the brakes at the 2GB point and stop progressing?

And again, OP is saying it's the same price. Seems some people would buy a 2GB model at the same price as a 4GB because they've been indoctrinated to believe 4GB is 'incorrect' (ad populum at work). Anyway, OP appears to have made their decision.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2013 7:33:48 AM

BigMack70 said:
I know right? Everyone runs around manually adding crazy SSAA to their games these days... All the cool kids do it. /sarcasm



Sorry but you're not that funny. I was almost gonna point out that the only way to achieve this in current games is with supersampling but I thought it would be stating the obvious. The value of the article is that it demonstrates that when pushed hard enough, the 2GB card drops to 3fps while the 4GB does 40fps. If that's not down to the memory difference, want to explain the framerate difference?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2013 9:00:51 AM

IMHO, i think 3gb vram is the absolute minimum for high end gaming. especially if running 1440p. in the long run, the video card with the higher vram will hold its resale value. many will disagree with me so do your research.
m
0
l
June 22, 2013 9:57:07 AM

In retaliation to the lack of condusive evidence supporting either side, I decided to say **** it, and I bought a EVGA GTX 780 w/ ACX.

Lol, in reality, you guys did help alot. Thanks to the actual evidence to support that higher VRAM is better, I decided to bridge the gap with the 780. More VRAM, more power, offspring of the GTX Titan, etc... I belive that the 780 will serve me better than any 770 could, and, while an extra $200 is a little steep, I know it will preform phenomenally.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2013 10:12:12 AM

Haha nice! Doesn't get much better than that!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2013 10:57:27 AM

forscience97 said:
In retaliation to the lack of condusive evidence supporting either side, I decided to say **** it, and I bought a EVGA GTX 780 w/ ACX.

Lol, in reality, you guys did help alot. Thanks to the actual evidence to support that higher VRAM is better, I decided to bridge the gap with the 780. More VRAM, more power, offspring of the GTX Titan, etc... I belive that the 780 will serve me better than any 770 could, and, while an extra $200 is a little steep, I know it will preform phenomenally.


LOL Splurged!! The GTX 780, although a bit steep for my budget, will serve you well. It's a pretty powerful card. Happy Gaming.
m
0
l
July 2, 2013 11:32:47 AM

Get the 4gb version. The only issue with that version is on some benchmarks there is a slight FPS (1-4) decrease in the 4gb version vs the 2gb version. I would say that is due to the 256bit memory bus addressing 4gb vs 2gb.

That being said, it depends how often you upgrade. If you don't do it much, go 4gb. Holiday season of 2014 your going to wish you had the closer to the 8gb of RAM the consoles have. A year ago this board was full of questions like 1.5gb or 2gb? Everyone said 1.5 and now that is borderline not enough.

Some games cross the 2gb threshold already at 1080p, that is only going to increase with time, especially when developers have 8gb to play with on the Xbox One and PS4. If you upgrade once a year and play at 1080p, go 2gb for now if you want to save $50, but why not set yourself for 2 or 3 years (or more) with a 4gb card?
m
0
l
July 27, 2013 1:24:28 PM


when you run tripple monitor setup like me it is better to have that extra gb imo ;) 

vmem said:
the twin frozer IV is slightly better IMO

also you don't need 4GB of VRAM. but you also don't need the lightning, it doesn't give you that much extra overclocking headroom and no one actually runs their build at max OC for daily use. just get the gaming edition from MSI. I think it's the best deal out there for a 770 (unless you just get the reference board)


m
0
l
!