Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i7 4770k GTX 770SLI or a single GTX 770?

Last response: in Components
Share
December 22, 2013 8:59:20 PM

How much of a diference will I see if I throw in another GTX 770? Currently I have i7 4770k and a single gtx 770. If any of you have similar builds, what FPS are you getting on stuff like arma3/2, battlefield3/4 and crysis 3?
December 22, 2013 9:04:10 PM

You only need a 2nd 770 if you are gaming on 1920x1080p with the most intensive games and want all the AA and eye candy on, or you are gaming on 1080p plus HD monitors.

If you are gaming below that resolution, you don't need another 770 to be honest.

And if you add another 770, you'd definitely see a huge burst of increase in frame rates , provided your CPU is a good one and is not bottlenecked.

Here's a page that you can see the change in frame rates for different games.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_770_sl...
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 9:08:37 PM

Wow!!!! Those benchmarks make me super happy :) . Do you know what cpu they were using on those tests, and if the i7 4770k is up to par with it?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 22, 2013 9:18:05 PM

mikestogy said:
Wow!!!! Those benchmarks make me super happy :) . Do you know what cpu they were using on those tests, and if the i7 4770k is up to par with it?


It was core i7 3960x Extreme Edition with 6 cores.

But dude, most games don't use such 4 cores, let alone 6. You'd hardly see any difference in benchies on your core i7 4770k.

So go for SLI and good luck.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 9:23:04 PM

I would say it is better to stick with Single 770 as for now. The reasons being:

1. 770 is still very powerful for 1080p and no need for another 770 since single 770 can play most games at very high-Ultra settings at good FPPS.

2. SLI comes with it's disadvantages. You would have to deal with Micro Stuttering, Skipped Frames, Higher Heat Output, etc.

3. Also the power consumption would increase.


Hence I would say that don't spend the money on another 770. Always remember, single GPU is better than SLI in terms of overall smoothness. If I were you I would just save the money and get the GPU only when the next gen GPU's would come out. As for now, there is no reason to get another 770 since the single 770 can handle everything like a BOSS!!

Hence stick with a single 770. It would be overall smoother.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 9:23:48 PM

Do you think I'd get over 30 fps on arma 3 ultra? I know that game is VERY cpu dependent, and I can't find any benchmarks for i7 4770k gtx 770 sli arma 3 anywhere :/ 
m
0
l

Best solution

December 22, 2013 11:59:52 PM

I found this benchmark for ARMA III and we can use this for reference.

Nvidia 770 is almost similar in performance to the AMD R9-280x. Hence the Nvidia 770 should offer similar performance as the Nvidia 770.

It can be clearly seen that the AMD R9-280x gives 60 FPS on ARMA II at very high settings, hence a single 770 should offer similar performance.



So, I think you should be good with a single 770, as I said earlier.

Also I found this benchmark, it says that Nvidia 770 is able to play ARMA III at 45 FPS average at High Settings at the Insane 2560x1600 resolution which is significantly more than the 1920x1080 that we normally use.

So at 1920x1080, it should have no problem giving 60 FPS at very-high settings.

Again, as I said earlier, no need of going dual GPU. One is good enough for now.
Share
December 23, 2013 2:12:00 AM

Thanks Sangeet! You seem very smart in this field so let me ask you this. Would it make sense that I've only been getting 25ish fps with the same exact build, except the i7 it's an fx 8350? I know that arma 3 is very cpu dependent and only uses 1 core - so would the i7 actually boost it that much?
m
0
l
December 23, 2013 4:20:19 AM

Looking at the benchmarks, it is very clear that the game is mostly GPU dependent and NOT CPU dependent.



It can clearly be seen that the difference between the i7 and the 8350 is just of 5 FPS. Hence the game performs about the same across most current gen CPU's. The fact that the i5 which is a quad core scores more than the 8 core FX 8350 shows us that game does not use more than 4 cores. Probably less than 4.

Hence 8350 should not be very far from the i7 in terms of performance. So, there is something else that is affecting your gameplay. Your CPU is just fine. Something else is affecting your gameplay.

What are your complete specs? Can you post them here?
m
0
l
December 23, 2013 11:07:02 AM

Full pc specs:

Fx 8350 at 4.6ghz
EVGA GTX 770 sc with acx cooling
16GB of Dominator Platnium DDR3 1866mhz ram
Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z motherboard
Raidmax 1000w gold psu
Enermax Coenus ATX case
Note - every other game runs at great fps on highest settings no problem. BF3 runs no problem as well. I get 60 fps on ultra settings.

My build soon:
Core i7 4770k
EVGA GTX 770 SC with ATX cooling 2gb
16GB of Dominator Platinum DDR3 1866mhz ram
ASUS Maximus VI Hero
Raidmax 1000w gold psu
Coolermaster HAF X case
H100 CPU cooler.

And I know that the game only uses 1 core, which the FX 8350 lacks power in single core performance. The i7 has far more single core performance, right?
m
0
l
December 24, 2013 12:29:14 AM

No reason to change the CPU and Motherboard. The 8350 is a very good CPU for gaming. The only change I would suggest would be the Power Supply. Let me explain it to you in short.

Power Supply is the most important part of the whole rig. If the PSU is of bad quality then there is a high possibility of it damaging your parts. And Raidmax Power Supplies are the worst quality Power Supplies, so you must replace the power supply As Soon As Possible.

Always remember PSU is the most important part of the PC. It converts the AC current from the wall to DC current which your parts can use. If the PSU is not good enough, then it would supply partial AC current which potentially can literally blow your parts. So, replace that Raidmax PSu with this one that I am suggesting below.

Power Supply: Corsair 860W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($139.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $139.99
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-24 03:28 EST-0500)


As for the problem with ARMA III, As far as I can guess, the CPU is not the concern. It might be a software thing. Since your rig can play every other game except ARMA III smoothly, so post it in the ARMA III forums, if they have any. Someone might be able to help you there. Try re installing the game, if that helps. But I can assure you that it is not a hardware problem. More like a software problem, driver, virus problem, etc.

Changing your CPU is just a waste of money if you ask me. 8350 is an awesome CPU, better stick with it. This would be my final opinion.
m
0
l
December 24, 2013 12:36:03 AM

Sorry, I'm a total idiot. I was reading Raidmax somewhere on another tab, actually have a corsair 1000watt. Anyway, regarding the build i did very heavy research and found that the i7 is better in pretty much every way for gaming, except the price. As of now, Arma 3 is the only game I'm really playing and I know it uses one core heavily. While the fx 8350 has 8 weaker cores, the i7 has 4 stronger cores with 2 threads each which is even better for Arma. I think I'll go with that!
m
0
l
December 24, 2013 12:57:32 AM

I think that you have already seen that the difference between the i7 and the 8350 in the chart above is just 5 FPS. Hence both CPU's are good at playing that game. I don't know who said it to you, but the game is not very CPU dependent.

The difference between the 8350 and the i7 is not so big enough to justify the extra $300 on the CPU and $200 for the motherboard. Spending $500 for a 5 FPS difference is crazy. I would suggest you to stop right there and just fix the software issue that might be there. I am almost sure that it is a software issue. Your rig is awesome, so if I were you I would make no change in it whatsoever.

I hope you understand.
m
0
l
!