-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
I5 or i7? 780 6gb or 780ti?
- Thread starter GarthV
- Start date
KrazyMe
Reputable
- Jun 9, 2014
- 47
- 0
- 4,560
i5 4670k, best Perfomance/price value and all you need for gaming. The only real difference between the i5 and the i7 is the hyper threading feature which is barely used in gaming !
A 780ti is overkill for Skyrim, but you'll be "future proof" for a while. More gb doesn't = better performance, it's just more headroom for render resolution, so only useful for triple monitor setups. If you play at 1080p, you only need 2gb on the GPU. The regular 780 should be more then enough for you !
A 780ti is overkill for Skyrim, but you'll be "future proof" for a while. More gb doesn't = better performance, it's just more headroom for render resolution, so only useful for triple monitor setups. If you play at 1080p, you only need 2gb on the GPU. The regular 780 should be more then enough for you !
Overclocking? Yes: i7-4790k (no reason not to go with Devil's Canyon at this point). No: Xeon E3 1230v3, or an i7-4790.
And unless you're playing at 4K res, there's no point in going with a 6GB 780. You'd also need two GPUs. So go with the 780 Ti
And unless you're playing at 4K res, there's no point in going with a 6GB 780. You'd also need two GPUs. So go with the 780 Ti
apcs13
Honorable
- Oct 2, 2013
- 960
- 0
- 11,360
Well, if you're only interested in gaming, there is a very small difference between the i5 and i7, as games really can't take much advantage of Intel's hyperthreading at this point, which is the only advantage of an i7. What I may suggest, however, is getting an i5-4690K, which is a new Devil's Canyon processor (updated Haswell) that is pretty much an improved 4670, but it also enables the feature of overclocking the CPU, and the 4690K does it better than a 4670K would for around the same price. An overclocked 4690K would definitely be much better for gaming than a 4770.
I would highly recommend the 780 Ti over a 780 6GB. GPUs that have more than the standard amount of VRAM are pretty much snake oil, due to the nature of their memory bus interface. For example, the 780 has a 384- bit memory bus. This means that it will work well with that 3GB of memory, and is also compatible with 6GB, 9GB, etc... HOWEVER: This is also a bandwith, meaning that it is designed specifically to work the best with the default 3GB of memory. This is the same way with other cards that have more than standard VRAM, such as the GTX 770 4GB. The smaller memory bus compared to the memory amount limits the effective bandwith of the VRAM, making the extra memory tacked on essentially useless. If you really need that much VRAM, I would suggest an R9 290(x), or if you MUST have 6GB (which I don't know why you would, I just saw a video where a guy had 2 780's in SLI on triple 1080P monitors and it ran fine, just barely capping out the 3GB limit total), look into the GTX Titan Black, although that's severe overkill and very expensive.
TL;DR: I really recommend that you look into a 4690K and a GTX 780 Ti, and consider overclocking that CPU.
I would highly recommend the 780 Ti over a 780 6GB. GPUs that have more than the standard amount of VRAM are pretty much snake oil, due to the nature of their memory bus interface. For example, the 780 has a 384- bit memory bus. This means that it will work well with that 3GB of memory, and is also compatible with 6GB, 9GB, etc... HOWEVER: This is also a bandwith, meaning that it is designed specifically to work the best with the default 3GB of memory. This is the same way with other cards that have more than standard VRAM, such as the GTX 770 4GB. The smaller memory bus compared to the memory amount limits the effective bandwith of the VRAM, making the extra memory tacked on essentially useless. If you really need that much VRAM, I would suggest an R9 290(x), or if you MUST have 6GB (which I don't know why you would, I just saw a video where a guy had 2 780's in SLI on triple 1080P monitors and it ran fine, just barely capping out the 3GB limit total), look into the GTX Titan Black, although that's severe overkill and very expensive.
TL;DR: I really recommend that you look into a 4690K and a GTX 780 Ti, and consider overclocking that CPU.
Thanks for the quick responses! I'm not sure on over clocking I've read slot about but never have tried it myself.. But aside from skyrim.. I'm selling my ps4 to help with the upgrades so a card that would keep me in the loop for games like evolve and the witcher 3 would be optimal I would hate to go below 30 fps and regret selling it ya know?
Executeorder66
Honorable
- Nov 6, 2013
- 211
- 0
- 10,710
Lol because watch dogs was released even tho it wasn't optimized and has been getting a steady stream of updates for the suckers who bought it.
apcs13
Honorable
- Oct 2, 2013
- 960
- 0
- 11,360
Not at 1080P there isn't, also you're mistaken, even the abhorrently optimized Watch_Dogs doesn't use 3GB of VRAM, and even the most intensive games only use no more than 2.3-2.4 GB VRAM at 1080P to date. Sure, in the future, games at their max settings may (and probably will) use 3GB VRAM or more, but at that point a GTX 780 Ti won't be able to achieve 60FPS at those levels anyways.
leeb2013
Honorable
- Aug 5, 2013
- 1,967
- 0
- 12,460
I agree, a few months ago everyone said nothing uses more than 2gb, then suddenly were seeing games using nearly 3gb at 1080p and 4gb+ multi monitor. Graphics cards won't make a big leap in performance any time soon, so 780 will still be a good performer for a couple of years, but the 3gb vram will become limiting.
Please check threads on forum,and answer from leeb2013.
There is games that use 3.5gb vram and more on 1080p monitors. There is also lots of people who are saying that games like bf4,watchdogs,skyrim with mods etc use this ram. So there is new games that use more then 3gb of vram on 1080p,and I think all new games will soon start to use more vram which is normal
apcs13
Honorable
- Oct 2, 2013
- 960
- 0
- 11,360
gamer1411 :
Please check threads on forum,and answer from leeb2013.
There is games that use 3.5gb vram and more on 1080p monitors. There is also lots of people who are saying that games like bf4,watchdogs,skyrim with mods etc use this ram. So there is new games that use more then 3gb of vram on 1080p,and I think all new games will soon start to use more vram which is normal
Not at 1080P resolutions, you must be thinking of 1440P or some higher amount, because that simply isn't true. Name a game that uses even close to 3GB at 1080P please, because I know for a fact that at least Battlefield 4 / Hardline beta, Crysis 3, Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed IV, and Titanfall just to name a few rarely go over 2GB at max settings, and never crest above 2.3 GB VRAM, so saying games exceed 3.5 GB usage is just fallacy.
I'm not going to take the word of two forum users over the hundreds and hundreds of benchmarks I have seen from reputable companies including Tom's and many others, unfortunately I am too clever to do that. I have a lot of proof from well renouned tech websites and personal data/experiences to back up my words, however all I have seen from you is a lot of nonsense.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html
that first link is Crysis 3 at all maxed settings plus 8x MSAA at 1920x1200, which is even slightly greater than standard 1080P, and that only uses 2204 MB of VRAM. Last I checked, 2204 MB is less than 3.5 GB of VRAM like you said many games use.
http://youtu.be/Nfcic3whaHE
This is a video of the redounded YouTube tech personality JayzTwoCents, where he ran Battlefield 4 on max settings (ultra and 4xMSAA plus max FXAA etc...) on 3 1080P monitors,yes thats right, not just a single 1080P panel, but THREE,, that's a total resolution of 5760x1080, which is much larger than 1080P, and in his video he states that he was only just drawing close to using up all 3GB of VRAM on his 780 SLI setup.
So your claim that at 1080P games easily use 3.5GB or more VRAM without saying which games or providing any actual proof really is quite profoundly erroneously concluded, considering all of the factual evidence I have provided here. If someone with a 5760x1080P setup actually uses .6 GB less VRAM than what you claim someone will need at 1920x1080, well, I think that may mean you're wrong.
apcs13 :
gamer1411 :
Please check threads on forum,and answer from leeb2013.
There is games that use 3.5gb vram and more on 1080p monitors. There is also lots of people who are saying that games like bf4,watchdogs,skyrim with mods etc use this ram. So there is new games that use more then 3gb of vram on 1080p,and I think all new games will soon start to use more vram which is normal
Not at 1080P resolutions, you must be thinking of 1440P or some higher amount, because that simply isn't true. Name a game that uses even close to 3GB at 1080P please, because I know for a fact that at least Battlefield 4 / Hardline beta, Crysis 3, Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed IV, and Titanfall just to name a few rarely go over 2GB at max settings, and never crest above 2.3 GB VRAM, so saying games exceed 3.5 GB usage is just fallacy.
I'm not going to take the word of two forum users over the hundreds and hundreds of benchmarks I have seen from reputable companies including Tom's and many others, unfortunately I am too clever to do that. I have a lot of proof from well renouned tech websites and personal data/experiences to back up my words, however all I have seen from you is a lot of nonsense.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html
that first link is Crysis 3 at all maxed settings plus 8x MSAA at 1920x1200, which is even slightly greater than standard 1080P, and that only uses 2204 MB of VRAM. Last I checked, 2204 MB is less than 3.5 GB of VRAM like you said many games use.
http://youtu.be/Nfcic3whaHE
This is a video of the redounded YouTube tech personality JayzTwoCents, where he ran Battlefield 4 on max settings (ultra and 4xMSAA plus max FXAA etc...) on 3 1080P monitors,yes thats right, not just a single 1080P panel, but THREE,, that's a total resolution of 5760x1080, which is much larger than 1080P, and in his video he states that he was only just drawing close to using up all 3GB of VRAM on his 780 SLI setup.
So your claim that at 1080P games easily use 3.5GB or more VRAM without saying which games or providing any actual proof really is quite profoundly erroneously concluded, considering all of the factual evidence I have provided here. If someone with a 5760x1080P setup actually uses .6 GB less VRAM than what you claim someone will need at 1920x1080, well, I think that may mean you're wrong.
I am not wrong,and there is games that use more then 3gb of vram with gtx for example.
I know a lot of people who know about graphic cards,and they did tell me this also. That games can use more then 3gb of vram ON 1080p. So stop posting that it can't happen
apcs13
Honorable
- Oct 2, 2013
- 960
- 0
- 11,360
gamer1411 :
apcs13 :
gamer1411 :
Please check threads on forum,and answer from leeb2013.
There is games that use 3.5gb vram and more on 1080p monitors. There is also lots of people who are saying that games like bf4,watchdogs,skyrim with mods etc use this ram. So there is new games that use more then 3gb of vram on 1080p,and I think all new games will soon start to use more vram which is normal
Not at 1080P resolutions, you must be thinking of 1440P or some higher amount, because that simply isn't true. Name a game that uses even close to 3GB at 1080P please, because I know for a fact that at least Battlefield 4 / Hardline beta, Crysis 3, Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed IV, and Titanfall just to name a few rarely go over 2GB at max settings, and never crest above 2.3 GB VRAM, so saying games exceed 3.5 GB usage is just fallacy.
I'm not going to take the word of two forum users over the hundreds and hundreds of benchmarks I have seen from reputable companies including Tom's and many others, unfortunately I am too clever to do that. I have a lot of proof from well renouned tech websites and personal data/experiences to back up my words, however all I have seen from you is a lot of nonsense.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html
that first link is Crysis 3 at all maxed settings plus 8x MSAA at 1920x1200, which is even slightly greater than standard 1080P, and that only uses 2204 MB of VRAM. Last I checked, 2204 MB is less than 3.5 GB of VRAM like you said many games use.
http://youtu.be/Nfcic3whaHE
This is a video of the redounded YouTube tech personality JayzTwoCents, where he ran Battlefield 4 on max settings (ultra and 4xMSAA plus max FXAA etc...) on 3 1080P monitors,yes thats right, not just a single 1080P panel, but THREE,, that's a total resolution of 5760x1080, which is much larger than 1080P, and in his video he states that he was only just drawing close to using up all 3GB of VRAM on his 780 SLI setup.
So your claim that at 1080P games easily use 3.5GB or more VRAM without saying which games or providing any actual proof really is quite profoundly erroneously concluded, considering all of the factual evidence I have provided here. If someone with a 5760x1080P setup actually uses .6 GB less VRAM than what you claim someone will need at 1920x1080, well, I think that may mean you're wrong.
I am not wrong,and there is games that use more then 3gb of vram with gtx for example.
I know a lot of people who know about graphic cards,and they did tell me this also. That games can use more then 3gb of vram ON 1080p. So stop posting that it can't happen
You've offered no proof, all you have said is that "you know some people" who this happens with. I, on the other hand, have had personal experiences that prove me right, but on top of that have many varieties of factual sources, which I have provided access to in this forum post for anyone to easily visit.
Just admit that you are wrong and stop trying to deceive everyone on this forum. People come to these looking for expert help and advise, and someone may be steered wrong by your incorrect drivel.
apcs13 :
gamer1411 :
apcs13 :
gamer1411 :
Please check threads on forum,and answer from leeb2013.
There is games that use 3.5gb vram and more on 1080p monitors. There is also lots of people who are saying that games like bf4,watchdogs,skyrim with mods etc use this ram. So there is new games that use more then 3gb of vram on 1080p,and I think all new games will soon start to use more vram which is normal
Not at 1080P resolutions, you must be thinking of 1440P or some higher amount, because that simply isn't true. Name a game that uses even close to 3GB at 1080P please, because I know for a fact that at least Battlefield 4 / Hardline beta, Crysis 3, Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed IV, and Titanfall just to name a few rarely go over 2GB at max settings, and never crest above 2.3 GB VRAM, so saying games exceed 3.5 GB usage is just fallacy.
I'm not going to take the word of two forum users over the hundreds and hundreds of benchmarks I have seen from reputable companies including Tom's and many others, unfortunately I am too clever to do that. I have a lot of proof from well renouned tech websites and personal data/experiences to back up my words, however all I have seen from you is a lot of nonsense.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html
that first link is Crysis 3 at all maxed settings plus 8x MSAA at 1920x1200, which is even slightly greater than standard 1080P, and that only uses 2204 MB of VRAM. Last I checked, 2204 MB is less than 3.5 GB of VRAM like you said many games use.
http://youtu.be/Nfcic3whaHE
This is a video of the redounded YouTube tech personality JayzTwoCents, where he ran Battlefield 4 on max settings (ultra and 4xMSAA plus max FXAA etc...) on 3 1080P monitors,yes thats right, not just a single 1080P panel, but THREE,, that's a total resolution of 5760x1080, which is much larger than 1080P, and in his video he states that he was only just drawing close to using up all 3GB of VRAM on his 780 SLI setup.
So your claim that at 1080P games easily use 3.5GB or more VRAM without saying which games or providing any actual proof really is quite profoundly erroneously concluded, considering all of the factual evidence I have provided here. If someone with a 5760x1080P setup actually uses .6 GB less VRAM than what you claim someone will need at 1920x1080, well, I think that may mean you're wrong.
I am not wrong,and there is games that use more then 3gb of vram with gtx for example.
I know a lot of people who know about graphic cards,and they did tell me this also. That games can use more then 3gb of vram ON 1080p. So stop posting that it can't happen
You've offered no proof, all you have said is that "you know some people" who this happens with. I, on the other hand, have had personal experiences that prove me right, but on top of that have many varieties of factual sources, which I have provided access to in this forum post for anyone to easily visit.
Just admit that you are wrong and stop trying to deceive everyone on this forum. People come to these looking for expert help and advise, and someone may be steered wrong by your incorrect drivel.
I told you to use google. I will not type "watch dogs use more then 3gb of vram and just paste you results
apcs13
Honorable
- Oct 2, 2013
- 960
- 0
- 11,360
That's Watch_Dogs only, which is horrendously optimized for PC and gives people with GTX 780s and i7 4770K's terrible framerates on settings they should easily be able to get 60+ FPS on. You can't use a single terrible port as an excuse, and even then, people only said it used 3.0-3.1 GB VRAM with all maxed out, so your claim of 3.5GB + is still complete crap, on top of the absolutely abhorrent quality of a PC game Watch_Dogs is optimization wise pretty much means you're still wrong almost entirely.
All of this on top of the fact that you still can't show me any actual evidence besides telling me to read a public forum with others like you posting incorrect information due to your lack of knowledge or pure laziness, whichever it may be, is not reassuring that you have any idea of what you are talking about.
If you ever have any actual proof, you can post it, otherwise I am done discussing this with you gamer1411. Your stubborn ignorance is not helping anyone, and I am wasting my time by trying to teach you because you refuse to learn. Good day.
All of this on top of the fact that you still can't show me any actual evidence besides telling me to read a public forum with others like you posting incorrect information due to your lack of knowledge or pure laziness, whichever it may be, is not reassuring that you have any idea of what you are talking about.
If you ever have any actual proof, you can post it, otherwise I am done discussing this with you gamer1411. Your stubborn ignorance is not helping anyone, and I am wasting my time by trying to teach you because you refuse to learn. Good day.
If you read this thread again,you will see that you told that game don't use more then 2gb of vram first time,and I told they use more then 3gb of vram.
Now you admit that watch dogs can use 3-3.1gb of vram,which is more then 3. So I win,you lose. Nothing to prove when you admit. Goodbye.
apcs13
Honorable
- Oct 2, 2013
- 960
- 0
- 11,360
... I refrain from telling people this out of respect for them as a human, and I might be breaking courtesy guidelines, but I really don't care. You're incredibly, fascinatingly even, ridiculously dense and ignorant. I really bid you farewell and wish you goodluck, because you're not going to survive long in this world.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 76
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram