Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Buying 770, 4GB better for future games?

Tags:
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 10, 2013 4:39:36 PM

Hey guys, I just want to say thank you for dropping in, even if you can't help!

(Sorry if this was covered elsewhere -- it's past midnight and I'm too tired to go looking around)

I've gotten a pretty good job recently and with all of my finances sorted out, I decided to buy a new GPU since the new Gaming generation coming and I only have a 570 ATM blah blah yadda yadda.

My PC is fine and can deliver all that's needed for the card, so don't worry about that.

I've already ordered a Gainward 770 Phantom 2GB model and it's going to get here on monday. I thought I was doing fine with that at the moment.
However I revently got into a debate with another PC guy because we were asked to come up with budget Gaming PC solutions.

The main point we butted heads on was the Vram. He kept saying 4GB is the "way of the future" because new console gens are coming with 5-8GBs GDDR5. I've pointed to the fact that it's shared memory and thus 2 GB GDDR5 for games alone would be enough.

We couldn't agree on anything and now I'm insecure about my choice. The 770 Phantom 4GB is about $50 more expensive than the 2GB model and I've already paid shipment. In theory I COULD send it back and order the 4GB model but all in all with shipment and the cost of the new card I would be at a total amount of $520 spent for a single card which I initially spent $430 on. Yikes.
On the other hand, I don't want to have a rude awakening next year when all of a sudden games require 3-4 GB GDDR5, it's a lot of money and I want it to hold up for at least 3 years.

I'm aware nobody here can predict the future but I know you people are sure as hell more knowledgeable than me. Can someone give me their opinion on this?

Thanks.

More about : buying 770 4gb future games

August 10, 2013 4:42:15 PM

A 2 gig card will be plenty on single to dual monitors. You really only need the 4 gig models if you are planning on running tri or penta monitors.
m
0
l
August 10, 2013 4:48:13 PM

Gam3r01 said:
A 2 gig card will be plenty on single to dual monitors. You really only need the 4 gig models if you are planning on running tri or penta monitors.


I'm not going to get more screens in the foreseeable future, I don't see the value for the costs it brings, I don't have the space and even if I did the money to do something like that, I would probably go SLI.

I'm using a single screen 1080p setup.. The person told me Watch_Dogs was going to need more than 2Gigs of GDDR5 and I'm definitely going to be getting that game and wanting it on max settings.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 10, 2013 4:51:30 PM

I doubt it will use 2 gigs at max settings, but having a 2 gig card for a single monitor is perfect, having 4 gigs is overkill for only one monitor, and sli can increase the performance to over what will be needed.
m
0
l

Best solution

August 10, 2013 5:34:51 PM

Let me start off by saying if you can easily afford shelving out the extra $50 then do it, assuming the difference in price for you similar to how it was for me in this exact same situation, lol. Though it seems in your situation the difference is $90. Long story short I now own a 4 GB GTX 770.

Now with that said, chances are you will most likely never use it, even for future games if you game at 1080p. I'm guessing that you like most people like to shoot for 60 fps. The games that currently go over 2GB of VRAM at 1080p with everything maxed out like Crysis 3 and Max Payne 3 will run out of Memory Bandwidth long before VRAM.

For Example on Crysis 3 @ 1080p I get the following in the wide open areas:
Maxed out settings with Post Processing turned down and SMAA 2x: ~55 FPS (~1.5 GB VRAM)
Ultra Settings with MSAA 8x: ~29 FPS (~2.2 GB VRAM)
Edit: This test was done with two monitors on a duplicate/cloned desktop which usually only adds about 100 to 200 MB during gaming. IIRC the numbers I got before on a single monitor were 1.9GB and 1.3GB of VRAM respectively.

On a test I just ran with Max Payne 3 @1080p.
Max Settings with MSAA 4X: ~55 FPS (~1,400 MB VRAM)
Max Settings with MSAA 8X: ~32 FPS (~2,048 MB VRAM)

So basically by the time you run out of VRAM the FPS will be so low that you probably won't want to play with the settings that go over 2GB of VRAM.

Now with that said, if you think theres a good chance you will want to SLI with another GTX 770 in the future then you will likely start to see the benefits of the extra VRAM. I've thought about doing it too but I would have to upgrade my PSU as well as either wait for a smaller model so it can fit into my top PCI slot or get a bigger case.

As for the extra VRAM on the PS4. Same concept. Even if the PS4 had only 2GB of VRAM for games the memory bandwidth would still likely serve as the bottleneck. I think the extra VRAM is due to the fact that Sony wants the PS4 to be able to perform numerous background task while gaming, in particular video capturing. They also want to make sure they don't get bottlenecked by VRAM like the PS3 was last gen with 512MB, and it's relatively cheap for them to add it.

In regards to Watch Dogs. While it's possible it could use over 2GB of VRAM I wouldn't bet on it. Going back to the test I ran for Crysis 3,VRAM at my 55 fps settings topped out at ~1.6GB. Though Watch Dogs looks great it's not likely to be in the same league as Crysis 3 in terms of GPU demands, even if you account for the fact that the game will be open world. That game is more likely to be on par with Sleeping Dogs which gave me the following.

Sleeping Dogs @ 1080P:
Max Settings with High AA: 60 FPS (800 MB VRAM)
Max Settings with Extreme AA: 45 FPS (~1 GB VRAM)

So long story short. If you're shooting for 60fps at 1080p on a single monitor, the chances of you using even over 1.7GB of VRAM are remote, let alone 2GB. It's ironic coming from me seeing as how I returned a 2GB GTX 770 version for a 4GB version but I figured for an extra $50 I'd rather have it and not need it, but I don't expect to ever have to use it unless I SLI in the future, though I think I'm more likely to get a Maxwell card then I am to get a second GTX 770. Though to be fair I am using a second "monitor" where I have my desktop duplicated on my 42 inch plasma as well as my 27 inch monitor so the extra VRAM is a decent insurance policy.
Share
August 11, 2013 6:35:15 AM

byogamingpc said:
I agree with dirk, get the 4GB GTX 770 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CU9GOAO/ref=as_li_q... You won't regret having if you don't use it but you will if you don't have it and need it.


The thing is I have already calculated those $430 with my other monthly expenses and I barely go it to fit in. I'm by no means rich and it took a lot of time for me to settle on getting a 770 over a 760.

Spending an extra $90 for something I'm not likely to ever take advantage of is not plausible for me as I still have bills and food to pay and frankly, I'd rather play with only 2x/4x MSAA Instead of going hungry for the last 10 days of the month.

Features like Ambient occlusion, Volumetric lighting, Anisotropicc filtering and Dynamic shadows are much more important to me than Antialiasing since even in Source games have never seen any huge improvement for anything above 4x MSAA (I mostly use FXAA, one of the reasons I exclusively use NVIDIA).

Does me not needing high amounts of Antialiasing change anything about my dilemma?
m
0
l
August 11, 2013 4:43:43 PM

Nico641 said:

Does me not needing high amounts of Antialiasing change anything about my dilemma?


Not really. Basically the 4GB model would have been more valuable if you were planning to sli or run multi monitor. The fact that you don't use resource intensive AA settings like MSAA 8X makes the chance of you using over the 2GB limit even less likely.

Most next gen games will use around 1.3 to 1.5GB of VRAM at 1080. At this point $90 plus the hassle of returns is not worth it. We will likely have a new President before you need more VRam with your current set up.
m
0
l
!