Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 760 FTW vs GTX 770 SC

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 6, 2013 5:53:18 PM

The title says it! I'm torn between the two cards. I've been looking at EVGA cards, but am not a big fanboy. I'm gaming, capturing gameplay, and video editing!

It's with i7 4770k, ASUS Maximus VI Hero MOBO, 16GB 1866 ram.

More about : gtx 760 ftw gtx 770

September 6, 2013 5:58:00 PM

GTX 770 SC, if you have the money! Huge core increase between the two, pretty much better in every way.
September 6, 2013 6:24:08 PM

FTW uses custom PCB and beefed up VRM
SC uses stock PCB and stock VRM

But ya have two different cards....looking at the choices, the Giga has highest clocks and lowest price. The Asis, Giga and MSI all have custom PCBs and beefed up VRMs

$400 ASUS GTX770-DC2OC-2GD5 1058 Mhz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$380 GIGABYTE GV-N770OC-2GD - 1137 Mhz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$400 MSI Gaming N770 TF 2GD5/OC - 1137 Mhz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$400 EVGA SuperClocked w/ ACX Cooling 02G-P4-2774-KR - 1111 MHz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Related resources
September 6, 2013 6:24:43 PM

Definitely the 770 if you can afford it.
September 6, 2013 6:28:58 PM

fudoka711 said:
Definitely the 770 if you can afford it.


The core speed is increased alot, but is the extra 100 mhz really worth another 100$ and loss of 2 gigs???
September 7, 2013 8:10:30 AM

The article I linked to make that pretty clear.
September 7, 2013 10:01:36 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
The article I linked to make that pretty clear.


Sorry! I didn't see your link! The tests show only a fraction of fps difference between the cards... Clearly 4 Gb is not worth the 100$ more...

I'm curious... What I think is that when you load a map in a video game, it will load the map onto the VRAM, correct? Then when you walk around a corner in the game, it will load up the information of the VRAM and the GPU will draw it and output it to the monitor? So, in that case, what benefits does having 4 Gb give you (at least untill a video game creates a map 4 Gb in size)? I understand that with higher resolutions, it has to load more pixels to the VRAM, so that's where it would help... So how would having more VRAM affect having 3 monitors, as it still has the same map of the game loaded up, wouldn't it just have to draw more pixels, creating a need for a better GPU? Or is my understanding of VRAM in-accurate?

Best solution

September 7, 2013 2:50:49 PM
Share

Christopher Gonzalez said:
JackNaylorPE said:
The article I linked to make that pretty clear.


Sorry! I didn't see your link! The tests show only a fraction of fps difference between the cards... Clearly 4 Gb is not worth the 100$ more...

I'm curious... What I think is that when you load a map in a video game, it will load the map onto the VRAM, correct? Then when you walk around a corner in the game, it will load up the information of the VRAM and the GPU will draw it and output it to the monitor? So, in that case, what benefits does having 4 Gb give you (at least untill a video game creates a map 4 Gb in size)? I understand that with higher resolutions, it has to load more pixels to the VRAM, so that's where it would help... So how would having more VRAM affect having 3 monitors, as it still has the same map of the game loaded up, wouldn't it just have to draw more pixels, creating a need for a better GPU? Or is my understanding of VRAM in-accurate?


That's more or less correct. Video game maps themselves aren't in a format that can be interpreted by a GPU. They will be loaded into system memory where map data is interpreted by the game logic and graphics API where it is then transformed into geometric primitives that can be interpreted by the GPU.

Graphics memory (VRAM is a particular type of graphics memory that is no longer in use, but the name has stuck) is used to store all of the data that the GPU needs to fully render a scene. This includes the above mentioned scene geometry, models, textures, shaders, mappings, lighting information, depth buffers, colour buffers, stencil buffers, and a final frame buffer.

The graphics memory also serves as a massive scratchpad for the GPU when it's performing tasks that exceed the capabilities of the GPU's internal registers. The larger the scene in terms of pixels, or the more complex the scene in terms of geometry, the more memory is required to store all of the intermediate data.

If the GPU does not have enough available memory, it will have to compensate by either dropping data (such as high resolution textures) from memory, or cannibalizing system memory which can have an adverse impact on performance.

2GiB of graphics memory is appropriate for gaming at 1080p, but there are a number of games which will smash past 2GiB when gaming at 2560x1600. The two that I can think of off the top of my head are Skyrim and Max Payne 3.
September 7, 2013 3:58:07 PM

Pinhedd said:
Christopher Gonzalez said:
JackNaylorPE said:
The article I linked to make that pretty clear.


Sorry! I didn't see your link! The tests show only a fraction of fps difference between the cards... Clearly 4 Gb is not worth the 100$ more...

I'm curious... What I think is that when you load a map in a video game, it will load the map onto the VRAM, correct? Then when you walk around a corner in the game, it will load up the information of the VRAM and the GPU will draw it and output it to the monitor? So, in that case, what benefits does having 4 Gb give you (at least untill a video game creates a map 4 Gb in size)? I understand that with higher resolutions, it has to load more pixels to the VRAM, so that's where it would help... So how would having more VRAM affect having 3 monitors, as it still has the same map of the game loaded up, wouldn't it just have to draw more pixels, creating a need for a better GPU? Or is my understanding of VRAM in-accurate?


That's more or less correct. Video game maps themselves aren't in a format that can be interpreted by a GPU. They will be loaded into system memory where map data is interpreted by the game logic and graphics API where it is then transformed into geometric primitives that can be interpreted by the GPU.

Graphics memory (VRAM is a particular type of graphics memory that is no longer in use, but the name has stuck) is used to store all of the data that the GPU needs to fully render a scene. This includes the above mentioned scene geometry, models, textures, shaders, mappings, lighting information, depth buffers, colour buffers, stencil buffers, and a final frame buffer.

The graphics memory also serves as a massive scratchpad for the GPU when it's performing tasks that exceed the capabilities of the GPU's internal registers. The larger the scene in terms of pixels, or the more complex the scene in terms of geometry, the more memory is required to store all of the intermediate data.

If the GPU does not have enough available memory, it will have to compensate by either dropping data (such as high resolution textures) from memory, or cannibalizing system memory which can have an adverse impact on performance.

2GiB of graphics memory is appropriate for gaming at 1080p, but there are a number of games which will smash past 2GiB when gaming at 2560x1600. The two that I can think of off the top of my head are Skyrim and Max Payne 3.


That's understandable. The level is loaded up into RAM and then the CPU will tell it what to draw and the GPU will do the work as far as actually drawing it and outputting it to the monitor.

When you say that 2 Gb of vram is appropriate for gaming, does that mean that it's enough, or that it's plenty. The games I'd like to play are mostly open world and have big maps so there could be quite a lot of textures to load and such...
September 7, 2013 7:26:46 PM

Christopher Gonzalez said:
Pinhedd said:
Christopher Gonzalez said:
JackNaylorPE said:
The article I linked to make that pretty clear.


Sorry! I didn't see your link! The tests show only a fraction of fps difference between the cards... Clearly 4 Gb is not worth the 100$ more...

I'm curious... What I think is that when you load a map in a video game, it will load the map onto the VRAM, correct? Then when you walk around a corner in the game, it will load up the information of the VRAM and the GPU will draw it and output it to the monitor? So, in that case, what benefits does having 4 Gb give you (at least untill a video game creates a map 4 Gb in size)? I understand that with higher resolutions, it has to load more pixels to the VRAM, so that's where it would help... So how would having more VRAM affect having 3 monitors, as it still has the same map of the game loaded up, wouldn't it just have to draw more pixels, creating a need for a better GPU? Or is my understanding of VRAM in-accurate?


That's more or less correct. Video game maps themselves aren't in a format that can be interpreted by a GPU. They will be loaded into system memory where map data is interpreted by the game logic and graphics API where it is then transformed into geometric primitives that can be interpreted by the GPU.

Graphics memory (VRAM is a particular type of graphics memory that is no longer in use, but the name has stuck) is used to store all of the data that the GPU needs to fully render a scene. This includes the above mentioned scene geometry, models, textures, shaders, mappings, lighting information, depth buffers, colour buffers, stencil buffers, and a final frame buffer.

The graphics memory also serves as a massive scratchpad for the GPU when it's performing tasks that exceed the capabilities of the GPU's internal registers. The larger the scene in terms of pixels, or the more complex the scene in terms of geometry, the more memory is required to store all of the intermediate data.

If the GPU does not have enough available memory, it will have to compensate by either dropping data (such as high resolution textures) from memory, or cannibalizing system memory which can have an adverse impact on performance.

2GiB of graphics memory is appropriate for gaming at 1080p, but there are a number of games which will smash past 2GiB when gaming at 2560x1600. The two that I can think of off the top of my head are Skyrim and Max Payne 3.


That's understandable. The level is loaded up into RAM and then the CPU will tell it what to draw and the GPU will do the work as far as actually drawing it and outputting it to the monitor.

When you say that 2 Gb of vram is appropriate for gaming, does that mean that it's enough, or that it's plenty. The games I'd like to play are mostly open world and have big maps so there could be quite a lot of textures to load and such...


2GiB is enough right now, but if you're forward thinking, go with more.
September 7, 2013 9:34:08 PM

Christopher Gonzalez said:
fudoka711 said:
Definitely the 770 if you can afford it.


The core speed is increased alot, but is the extra 100 mhz really worth another 100$ and loss of 2 gigs???


Oh sorry I didn't answer this part earlier. The gtx 770 also has 33% more cores than the gtx 760.

And I agree that you shouldn't need more than 2Gb of vram for a while unless you really intend to play at 1600p and play skyrim..
September 8, 2013 10:20:35 AM

fudoka711 said:
Christopher Gonzalez said:
fudoka711 said:
Definitely the 770 if you can afford it.


The core speed is increased alot, but is the extra 100 mhz really worth another 100$ and loss of 2 gigs???


Oh sorry I didn't answer this part earlier. The gtx 770 also has 33% more cores than the gtx 760.

And I agree that you shouldn't need more than 2Gb of vram for a while unless you really intend to play at 1600p and play skyrim..


Ooohhhh! That definetely makes a difference XD! And 2GB is plenty for bigger open world games at 1080p?
!