Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 770 with 2GB: Good enough for next gen?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 29, 2013 6:31:07 PM

Is it a good idea to consider building a system now, for next gen games or should I wait longer, my current one(2010 midrange laptop from retail) runs Oblivion, New Vegas, Skyrim ok for now, the next games I'm interested in are Witcher 3(definitely can't run it on this laptop) and MGSV.

I'm currently thinking about my next PC, I'm considering getting a desktop to play on instead of Xbox One or PS4 as I prefer PC. $2000 total budget, with up to $500 of that for video card. Would a GTX 770 with 2 or 3GB(whichever for $500) work well for a next gen game like Witcher 3, MGSV, next Fallout and TES, FF XV(SE has said they are considering a PC release), 3D modeling in Blender for Skyrim/Fallout/Next TES/Witcher. Aiming for 60 FPS(120 FPS if realistic), 1920x1080 resolution, everything Ultra plus ENB series and texture mods for Bethesda games. I'd consider AMD also but I'm not familiar with them at all(have only owned Nvidia cards). If a 770 would work well then I'll look into a full system, if no perhaps I will look at Nvidia or AMD's next set of graphics cards when they come out(ie GTX 870). Thank you if you can help

I'll be using a GTX 770 similar to this
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...
Benq 120hz 24 inch(I know it's discontinued but I will go for one that's similar)
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682...
Solid State Drive:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682...
Probably an i7 like this:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...
Might get Liquid cooling, don't know which are good, just tired of very loud fans/PC getting too hot, and I might live in a dorm next year so don't want heating problems. If it's hard to fit everything neccesary in the budget I might buy the Benq/Asus monitor later and just use an older one for a while. If it's not realistic to play next gen games on PC yet, I could just buy a PS4 or an Xbox One for now, get a PC in a few years.

If inadequete I'd consider an AMD like this:
7990 6GB $599. Can't tell if this is a limited time sale, but looks like it.
http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-PCI-Express-Edition-Grap...

More about : gtx 770 2gb good gen

September 29, 2013 6:42:10 PM

I'd personally say, with that setup a GTX 770 will bring you the results you're looking for. However, if you're running all ultra settings and only have one 770, don't expect to see FPS results within the 100-120 area in your games. The 770 is a beast, but those games can become pretty demanding as you push the limits. You will enjoy a beautiful picture, though, with good framerates given the punishment projected onto the card & system overall.

I'd say go with what you plan on getting, and eventually you will have enough $ to upgrade a component - just snag another 770. In SLI, I would imagine these things could tear through the great wall of china with remarkable results.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
September 29, 2013 6:43:01 PM

If you can stand to wait, then go ahead and do it, but that's up to you. Next gen consoles aren't beastly by PC standards, but I'm still expecting there to be a pretty significant leap in PC game quality as a result.

The 770 is a great card, and if you're looking for 120 fps in next gen stuff, 2 of them might be in order. I don't know what the rest of your build looks like, but from what you've listed there's already money that can be shaved off to put towards more graphics processing power. You could save $70 on the CPU by grabbing a 4670k and overclocking it. Overclocked to ~4.3GHz it should match a stock 3770(even in rendering), which can't be overclocked. In any event, I'd grab a motherboard that will allow you to SLI so that you can take advantage of that 120Hz monitor.
Share
Related resources
a c 225 U Graphics card
September 29, 2013 6:51:20 PM

The only way to answer that question for sure is to wait until they are released and the hardware / games tested.....nVidias cards aren't expected till may 2014 or so so you're a bit early trying to pick components at this point if you're waiting for that. And then, when that point comes, there will be new next generation games and next generation hardware right around the corner and you will be in the same dilemma you are today. Peeps have been asking this same question since the early 90s. As to the other questions:

If you're a gamer, i think you'll be getting the Asus

http://pcmonitors.info/others/benq-xl2411t-vs-asus-vg24...

They'll be a lotta new SSDs out in next 8 months while your waiting for those new cards.

Ya asking about new hardware and new games, but ya picked a last generation CPU. The 3xxx overclocks about 6% faster than 4xxx but 4xxx is 10% faster outta the box at stock speed, so 3xxx never quite catches up.

I doubt you will be able to find a MoBo for 3xxx tho in 8 months when the new nVidia cards come out....and if its gaming, the i5 will serve just as well. Again, by that time, Haswell will have a whole new set of CPUs out...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130613114053...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 29, 2013 6:57:32 PM

I would agree go for a GTX 770 first. And then you can add a second GTX 770 later if needed. It is a very good card. But until the next gen games come out and we can bench them it is still hard to tell how well they are going to play.

For my I am going to stick with my i5 3570K Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI because I still think there is enough life left in this rig to get me by atleast for a while. Hopefully until Broadwell comes out. I think I will be skipping Haswell since I built this rig in January and do not really have the cash to rebuild it just 9 months later.
m
0
l
a c 225 U Graphics card
September 29, 2013 7:08:41 PM

No reason to upgrade.....Intel 9xx systems w/ 5xxx SLI are still viable today.
m
0
l
September 29, 2013 8:06:53 PM

ephexx793 said:
I'd personally say, with that setup a GTX 770 will bring you the results you're looking for. However, if you're running all ultra settings and only have one 770, don't expect to see FPS results within the 100-120 area in your games. The 770 is a beast, but those games can become pretty demanding as you push the limits. You will enjoy a beautiful picture, though, with good framerates given the punishment projected onto the card & system overall.

I'd say go with what you plan on getting, and eventually you will have enough $ to upgrade a component - just snag another 770. In SLI, I would imagine these things could tear through the great wall of china with remarkable results.


Is it difficult to get SLI working? Perhaps I'd need a really good power supply, better cooling? I'm pretty new to PCs, have only bought off the shelf complete PC/Laptops but will do a custom this time. And would 120 FPS be a big benefit for Elder Scrolls/FF XV? Only FPS games I'll play are MGS V, next fallout, also casual Starcraft 2. Perhaps I'd be smarter to go for a bigger Asus(maybe 30 inch?) but 60hz? Thanks for the answers guys!
m
0
l
October 6, 2013 8:30:41 AM

Kobe Eveleigh said:
ephexx793 said:
I'd personally say, with that setup a GTX 770 will bring you the results you're looking for. However, if you're running all ultra settings and only have one 770, don't expect to see FPS results within the 100-120 area in your games. The 770 is a beast, but those games can become pretty demanding as you push the limits. You will enjoy a beautiful picture, though, with good framerates given the punishment projected onto the card & system overall.

I'd say go with what you plan on getting, and eventually you will have enough $ to upgrade a component - just snag another 770. In SLI, I would imagine these things could tear through the great wall of china with remarkable results.


Is it difficult to get SLI working? Perhaps I'd need a really good power supply, better cooling? I'm pretty new to PCs, have only bought off the shelf complete PC/Laptops but will do a custom this time. And would 120 FPS be a big benefit for Elder Scrolls/FF XV? Only FPS games I'll play are MGS V, next fallout, also casual Starcraft 2. Perhaps I'd be smarter to go for a bigger Asus(maybe 30 inch?) but 60hz? Thanks for the answers guys!


It all comes down to personal preference. Personally, I prefer 120 HZ for gaming (I mostly play FPS, a little skyrim and few various others here and there) because it provides a much smoother image, and that really makes me feel more 'in' the game. Some prefer to snag a 60 HZ but with great colors and a really strong HD picture (I've heard Samsung has some monitors that put out an outstanding picture).

SLI is just as easy to set up as installing a graphics card. You simply throw the other card in, attach the SLI bridge (on top of your graphics card there should be a small silicon-pinned bridge port, that's where it goes). Then, you start up your computer and enable the SLI. Voila!

You would need a strong power supply if you were planning on SLI'ing two 770's plus having an overclocked CPU. I would suggest nothing less than ~800W in that scenario.

So, in all, it's not about 120 HZ being a big benefit, more-so it's what you want out of your games. You can play in 60 HZ and get a nice HD picture, or if you want that smooth, 'realistic' feel - the 120 HZ will do nicely. I love my 120-HZ monitor, but remember - your true hertz only match the FPS which you are outputting at the moment. So, if you can only push 80 FPS, you'll never see past 80 HZ. You may already know this, but if not it's good to keep in mind.
m
0
l
October 10, 2013 11:47:33 PM

ephexx793 said:


It all comes down to personal preference. Personally, I prefer 120 HZ for gaming (I mostly play FPS, a little skyrim and few various others here and there) because it provides a much smoother image, and that really makes me feel more 'in' the game. Some prefer to snag a 60 HZ but with great colors and a really strong HD picture (I've heard Samsung has some monitors that put out an outstanding picture).

SLI is just as easy to set up as installing a graphics card. You simply throw the other card in, attach the SLI bridge (on top of your graphics card there should be a small silicon-pinned bridge port, that's where it goes). Then, you start up your computer and enable the SLI. Voila!

You would need a strong power supply if you were planning on SLI'ing two 770's plus having an overclocked CPU. I would suggest nothing less than ~800W in that scenario.

So, in all, it's not about 120 HZ being a big benefit, more-so it's what you want out of your games. You can play in 60 HZ and get a nice HD picture, or if you want that smooth, 'realistic' feel - the 120 HZ will do nicely. I love my 120-HZ monitor, but remember - your true hertz only match the FPS which you are outputting at the moment. So, if you can only push 80 FPS, you'll never see past 80 HZ. You may already know this, but if not it's good to keep in mind.


If I'd like to make a complete build around a 770 or similar graphics card(with PSU for SLI in the future, extra heating, maybe even liquid cooling), 16GB high quality RAM, a good >500GB SSD, probably going to go i7(unless a similar i5 is much cheaper), etc. should I create a new question or add it here? I'd like to get a better idea of price, then will decide whether to buy or wait for new hardware to come out/more next gen games get benchmarks. Depends on how my money works out in the future.

Just checked the benchmarks for Battlefield 4 beta. With everything maxed GTX 770 gets 49.0-59.2 FPS @1920x1080, 29.0-37.9 fPS @ 2560x1440. Even GTX Titan gets 37-47.4 FPS @ 2560x1440. Does this mean I should wait for more games to get benchmarked, in case current cards don't hold up well? Results seem a bit lower then I might expect(not sure if it's due to a lack of optimization).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/U/404310/original/Ultra-...

Interesting comment, this user has SLI GTX 780's, min FPS 42, average 74, max 118, 1440P(2560x1440)

"BigMack70 , October 9, 2013 9:38 PM
Would love to see some more detailed CPU benchmarks on a full 64 man conquest server once the game comes out... from some other data out there it looks possible that BF4 multiplayer is the first game to actually benefit from Hyperthreaded i7s over their i5 counterparts.

In 64 man conquest games, doing a FRAPS benchmark of an entire 30 minute round, I got a minimum framerate of 42, average of 74, and max of 118 on my rig (4.8 GHz 2600k || 780 SLI @ 1100/1500 || 16GB DDR3 2133c11) at 1440p with all settings maxed and 120 fov.

Also interesting to see 2GB cards struggling at high res on this game. I really didn't think we'd see that so soon, given that the 780/Titan/7950/7970 are the only cards yet released with >2GB standard memory."

This is a major concern if I get a 2GB 770 or SLI 770s.
m
0
l
October 16, 2013 2:00:38 PM

Kobe Eveleigh said:
11665604,0,895537 said:


"BigMack70 , October 9, 2013 9:38 PM
Would love to see some more detailed CPU benchmarks on a full 64 man conquest server once the game comes out... from some other data out there it looks possible that BF4 multiplayer is the first game to actually benefit from Hyperthreaded i7s over their i5 counterparts.

In 64 man conquest games, doing a FRAPS benchmark of an entire 30 minute round, I got a minimum framerate of 42, average of 74, and max of 118 on my rig (4.8 GHz 2600k || 780 SLI @ 1100/1500 || 16GB DDR3 2133c11) at 1440p with all settings maxed and 120 fov.

Also interesting to see 2GB cards struggling at high res on this game. I really didn't think we'd see that so soon, given that the 780/Titan/7950/7970 are the only cards yet released with >2GB standard memory."

This is a major concern if I get a 2GB 770 or SLI 770s.
said:


I really wouldn't worry about this. Running a variable like an internet connection in coordination with a 64 player map leads to a lot of false positives affecting your FPS.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2013 2:34:13 PM

i went through this years ago with a 1.25gb vram 570, and 90% of people argued to their death that 1.25gb vram would be plenty for the next few years and that 2gb and 2.5gb versions of nvidia/amd were not necessary.... that was early 2011, not 7 months later, battlefield 3 and skyrim came out and pushed well beyond the 1.25gb vram that the 570 had. i had issues playing bf3, and skryim was even worse since mods were challenging.

that was my lesson with peoples opinion about vram. maybe this time around 2gb really will be enough. i don't know, its a great question for the game developers.

me personally, running 1440p and s.t.e.p. modded skyrim, 2gb flat out wasnt enough, i had a 2gb 670, switched to a 3gb 7950 solved all sorts of problems for me, and i noticed 64player bf3 was a little smoother on the 7950, even if they both benched heaven or 3d mark near the same.
m
0
l
October 16, 2013 2:38:08 PM

Hi there,

There are multiple questions in your thread lets see if I can shed some light.

Your first question: Is 770 with 2GB VRAM enough. The answer is really it depends. Despite people saying all the time that you need more VRAM to game at higher resolutions that is simply not the case. This review of hte GTX 770 2GB VRAM vs 4GB VRAM found really no difference in the two cards even at resolutions up to 2560x1600.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...

Where I have seen the VRAM potentially being a bottleneck is with 2 2GB cards in SLI. When you SLI 2 cards they will use only the amount of VRAM of the lowest card. So a 4GB 770 and a 2GB 770 in SLI will still only use a total of 2 GB VRAM. In some benchmarks at higher resolutions adding a second 2GB 770 does not produce the expected almost 100% increase in FPS and most people think that is due to the VRAM bottleneck compared to the GPU processing power.

So If you plan on gaming at 1080p then you should really not worry about having "only" 2GB VRAM. If you plan on SLI in the future for high resolution (over 1080p) then I would play it safe and get the 4gb model.

What I would recommend is this.

2560x1400 is the resolution you are shooting for if building a 2000$ machine these days. I have bought one of the cheap Korean 1440p monitors and the difference is amazing compared to 1080p. My 1080p screen is gathering dust in a corner despite being a high quality display. You can even get them on NewEgg these days and not risk having to return something to Korea, and the Qnix is reported to be overclockable to 120hz!!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY...

In terms of processors if gaming is your concern there is currently no reason at all to go with an i7. In this review of BF4 performance while using a GTX Titan the highest FPS was achieved with an overclocked i5-2500K even when opposed to i7-3960X!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...

So in summary for your build I would recommend:

Monitor: 2560x1440, perhaps the Qnix 375$
GPU: Single GTX 770 4GB Vram for now, SLI later 420$
CPU: i5-4670K 240$
PSU: Quality PSU (seasonic?) with at least 850W for safe SLI later 120$
Mobo: personal preference, Z87 chipset, SLI capable

That leaves you 850$ for the Mobo, Ram, DVD, Case, cooling, whatever else you need which should be enough.

Let me know how your build goes!

P
m
0
l
!