Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

How much VRAM for a GTX 770 at 2560x1080p

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 18, 2013 3:18:08 PM

I am curious if a 4GB version of the 770 would be better than a 2GB for this resolution. I may be doing SLI in a few months, so if I have a 2GB version in SLI, will VRAM matter that much?
December 18, 2013 3:20:39 PM

No. Performance will be virtually identical.
m
0
l
December 18, 2013 3:27:11 PM

if you are going to sli, or if you are running at that high res, yes, get the 4gig card. you'll be sorry if you don't.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

December 18, 2013 3:38:47 PM

swifty_morgan said:
if you are going to sli, or if you are running at that high res, yes, get the 4gig card. you'll be sorry if you don't.


This is wrong. People keep posting this crap on here that the 4GB version is better and yet every single benchmark everywhere shows them as being almost exactly the same. The 4GB version is a marketing gimmick, nothing more.

Just a couple of examples:

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Pe...

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

etc, etc
Share
December 19, 2013 3:07:00 AM

well cpu expert................... vram has very little to do with how many fps any given machine gets.......... (*). it has more to do with the processor (cpu ) and the processor on your gpu................. the extra vram does however (*) allow sustainably higher frame rates at higher resolution at higher settings without hesitations/hitching/frame dips/stutter, etc. whereas the 2gig card will under certain circumstances. I will also say, if buying a card now and planning on having it for a while, and using a high resolution monitor, you'd be a nut not to look out for yourself. thanks for the links but all they ever do is show fps counts. they never tell you how low the fps dip, and the reviewer who does those automated benchmarks has no idea if the game plays smoothly or not........... not because he's too lazy to sit behind the machine and play, but because it's easier to do because of the time involved. most of them are extremely flawed because of this........... and then you have to look at the reviewer and what his stake is in the matter ($$$$$).. don't bite the hand that feeds you. ever see those linus vids, the guy never says the card sucks because the frames drop........... ($$$$$) he kisses ass like the pros.
m
0
l
December 19, 2013 4:48:02 AM

@ Deuce65 - In one of the threads on this site someone mentioned that his VRAM usage of GTX 770 2GB on BF4 at 1440x900 resolution was 1.9GB.
m
0
l
December 19, 2013 4:54:01 AM

That's right. 2 years ago, yes, 2GB was plenty. But now, things have changed.
m
0
l
December 19, 2013 2:38:48 PM

swifty_morgan said:
well cpu expert................... vram has very little to do with how many fps any given machine gets.......... (*). it has more to do with the processor (cpu ) and the processor on your gpu................. the extra vram does however (*) allow sustainably higher frame rates at higher resolution at higher settings without hesitations/hitching/frame dips/stutter, etc. whereas the 2gig card will under certain circumstances. I will also say, if buying a card now and planning on having it for a while, and using a high resolution monitor, you'd be a nut not to look out for yourself. thanks for the links but all they ever do is show fps counts. they never tell you how low the fps dip, and the reviewer who does those automated benchmarks has no idea if the game plays smoothly or not........... not because he's too lazy to sit behind the machine and play, but because it's easier to do because of the time involved. most of them are extremely flawed because of this........... and then you have to look at the reviewer and what his stake is in the matter ($$$$$).. don't bite the hand that feeds you. ever see those linus vids, the guy never says the card sucks because the frames drop........... ($$$$$) he kisses ass like the pros.


Well if you are suggesting that reviewers are writing biased reviews for the money that may well be, but if that is the case, it makes little sense that they would write a review that says DONT buy the more expensive card.
Every objective test has shown over and over again that the 770 at 2 GB runs exactly the same as the 770 at 4GB at any reasonable resolution. By the time you hit a point where the VRAM makes a difference (very high resolutions) it makes no difference anymore because the 770, even in SLI, can't handle it to begin with. And thats the main problem with the 4GB model. Yes obviously there are situations where 4GB can all be used but the resolutions required to hit that are beyond the capabilities of that GPU. Which raises another point, you mention future proofing, but if that is your concern why are we looking at a mid range card in the first place?
Regardless, Ive said enough of this topic. If despite every measurable test showing it makes no difference you still want to pay the extra money thats your perogative of course.
m
0
l
December 19, 2013 2:41:45 PM

770 midrange....................///????????????????????????
m
0
l
December 19, 2013 2:41:46 PM

770 midrange....................///????????????????????????
m
0
l
December 21, 2013 10:47:24 AM

Deuce65 said:
swifty_morgan said:
well cpu expert................... vram has very little to do with how many fps any given machine gets.......... (*). it has more to do with the processor (cpu ) and the processor on your gpu................. the extra vram does however (*) allow sustainably higher frame rates at higher resolution at higher settings without hesitations/hitching/frame dips/stutter, etc. whereas the 2gig card will under certain circumstances. I will also say, if buying a card now and planning on having it for a while, and using a high resolution monitor, you'd be a nut not to look out for yourself. thanks for the links but all they ever do is show fps counts. they never tell you how low the fps dip, and the reviewer who does those automated benchmarks has no idea if the game plays smoothly or not........... not because he's too lazy to sit behind the machine and play, but because it's easier to do because of the time involved. most of them are extremely flawed because of this........... and then you have to look at the reviewer and what his stake is in the matter ($$$$$).. don't bite the hand that feeds you. ever see those linus vids, the guy never says the card sucks because the frames drop........... ($$$$$) he kisses ass like the pros.


Well if you are suggesting that reviewers are writing biased reviews for the money that may well be, but if that is the case, it makes little sense that they would write a review that says DONT buy the more expensive card.
Every objective test has shown over and over again that the 770 at 2 GB runs exactly the same as the 770 at 4GB at any reasonable resolution. By the time you hit a point where the VRAM makes a difference (very high resolutions) it makes no difference anymore because the 770, even in SLI, can't handle it to begin with. And thats the main problem with the 4GB model. Yes obviously there are situations where 4GB can all be used but the resolutions required to hit that are beyond the capabilities of that GPU. Which raises another point, you mention future proofing, but if that is your concern why are we looking at a mid range card in the first place?
Regardless, Ive said enough of this topic. If despite every measurable test showing it makes no difference you still want to pay the extra money thats your perogative of course.


I am not trying to be future proofing, but rather trying to have more opportunities available for the future. So if I wanted to get a 2560x1080p monitor, I would be able to. I am looking at a 770 because I can't afford anything more expensive. I was thinking about going for a 290 when gigabyte makes their version f it, but the 290 prices just went up by a lot Plus, the 770 is not what I would call "mid-range." It is a slightly better 680. Which runs games at ultra at 1920x1080p at a constantly smooth frame rate. The 770 I am looking at the is the EVGA version with the stock cooler on it (or just the version directly from Nvidia). I don't care that the other coolers are better. This one looks cool, and I like it. It costs $379. That is the price of a 4gb version. I was just curious if it would be better to get the 4gb version to limit myself less for potential future upgrades.
m
0
l
!