Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 780 vs GTX 770

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 21, 2014 12:37:00 PM

Is gtx 780 worth it? I will play only on one monitor 1920*1080.

gtx780 cost about 300$ more in my country.And don't just say "I would go for 780 because it is better". In that case I will buy 2X titan black.Please say why and why not.

More about : gtx 780 gtx 770

June 21, 2014 12:47:45 PM

the GTX 780 is only about 8-13 fps more than the GTX 770 in most games. That's not worth $300. If you don't mind AMD and wan't more performance per dollar get the R9 290, it's as good as a GTX 780 if not slightly better and much less expensive.

However based on your two choices a GTX 770 is enough for single monitored 1080p gaming, and it will most definitely max any game you throw at it , maybe not at a steady 60 fps for high demanding games, but certainly more than 30.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 12:49:13 PM

Well, obviously you know the 780 will be better in the long run, but it's all up to you whether you think it's worth it, but by looking at the performance increase you will get compared to the price that you would be paying, I don't think it's worth it.

Here are some benchmark comparisons - http://home.anandtech.com/bench/product/1037?vs=1036

Just to be curious, how much is each card?
m
0
l
Related resources
June 21, 2014 12:49:17 PM

I would get the GTX 770. That should be plenty for 1920x1080, especially if you get the 4GB version.

Can you give me some websites/stores that you plan on buying from? I would like to take a look at what they have.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 21, 2014 12:51:41 PM

Also take a look at the red teams r9 280x for comparisons with the 770, it has 1gb more vram (Good for games like watchdogs) but doesn't have features like geforce experience and shadowplay. I'd go for whichever you can get cheaper but that's just me lol :) 
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 12:51:51 PM

wolverine96 said:
I would get the GTX 770. That should be plenty for 1920x1080, especially if you get the 4GB version.

Can you give me some websites/stores that you plan on buying from? I would like to take a look at what they have.


Squeezing 4GB through a 256-bit memory bus is not really the most effective !,you can find cards around the same price with a 500 range memory bus,making higher VRAM more effective!

Well actually it is better!,idk for what reason you are jumping to 2 titan blacks,but it is undeniable that the GTX 780 has much better performance and when OCd has very good results,plus which GTX 770 ? which GTX 780 ? does it have a good cooling solution ? or will you have a loud jet engine sitting inside your case,it all depends on the make
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 12:52:46 PM

wolverine96 said:
I would get the GTX 770. That should be plenty for 1920x1080, especially if you get the 4GB version.

Can you give me some websites/stores that you plan on buying from? I would like to take a look at what they have.


Isn't the 4gb a bit overkill for 1080p? And isn't the 4gb limited by the small bus speed of 256bit?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

m
0
l
June 21, 2014 12:56:11 PM

guitarmatt99 said:
wolverine96 said:
I would get the GTX 770. That should be plenty for 1920x1080, especially if you get the 4GB version.

Can you give me some websites/stores that you plan on buying from? I would like to take a look at what they have.


Isn't the 4gb a bit overkill for 1080p? And isn't the 4gb limited by the small bus speed of 256bit?

Correct me if I'm wrong.


Yes you are correct,i had addressed this in my comment that a large Vram needs a large bus to match! the R9 290 has very very good results for price and has a 510 memory bus which suits better for a 4GB Vram card!
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:00:59 PM

FireManDude said:
Yes you are correct,i had addressed this in my comment that a large Vram needs a large bus to match! the R9 290 has very very good results for price and has a 510 memory bus which suits better for a 4GB Vram card!


Yeah, I saw your comment after I clicked 'answer', we both answered really quickly, I didn't purposely do it, it irritates me when people recommend the 4gb version of that card!
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:12:07 PM

Sorry! I didn't realize the VRAM ran at different speeds in the two versions! (I won't irritate you again, guitarmatt99. ;) )

In that case, just get the 2GB GTX 770.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:17:55 PM

wolverine96 said:
Sorry! I didn't realize the VRAM ran at different speeds in the two versions! (I won't irritate you again, guitarmatt99. ;) )

In that case, just get the 2GB GTX 770.


EDIT: Ignore this post, information is not entirely correct.

Both versions of the 770 run at the same bus speed of 256bit. However the 4gb card cannot utilise all of the memory because of the small bus speed.

It's like trying to shove twice as much data through the same sized hole... haha!

Sorry if that was a bad explanation, I tried my best! :p 


m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:21:19 PM

guitarmatt99 said:
wolverine96 said:
Sorry! I didn't realize the VRAM ran at different speeds in the two versions! (I won't irritate you again, guitarmatt99. ;) )

In that case, just get the 2GB GTX 770.


Both versions of the 770 run at the same bus speed of 256bit. However the 4gb card cannot utilise all of the memory because of the small bus speed.

Sorry if that was a bad explanation, I tried my best! :p 

It's like trying to shove twice as much data through the same sized hole... It just can't haha!


That's entirely untrue, it is able to use all of its VRAM if the game you're playing actually calls for it (Watch Dogs, ultra textures, 3.6 GB on my GTX 770).

Its generally a waste of money to have the 4 GB version, though, as virtually no games will use that much at 1080p. Strongly recommend the GTX 770 2 GB for 1080p gaming, the 780 makes more sense to have at 1440p or possibly 1080p/120 Hz.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:22:50 PM

oxiide said:

That's entirely untrue, it is able to use all of its VRAM if the game you're playing actually calls for it (Watch Dogs, ultra textures, 3.6 GB on my GTX 770).

Its generally a waste of money to have the 4 GB version, though, as virtually no games will use that much at 1080p. Strongly recommend the GTX 770 2 GB for 1080p gaming, the 780 makes more sense to have at 1440p or possibly 1080p/120 Hz.


Really? This is not was I've read in the past, I've heard that the bus speed limits it, thanks for correcting me though, I'm going to have a read around as another guy also said the same thing as me on this thread.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:27:56 PM

Okay... so was I right? They are exactly the same performance-wise until you actually need more than 2GB? If that is the case, I would say get whichever version you think you need (2GB or 4GB). The only reason I recommended the 4GB version was because the GTX 780 has 3GB.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:28:39 PM

guitarmatt99 said:
oxiide said:

That's entirely untrue, it is able to use all of its VRAM if the game you're playing actually calls for it (Watch Dogs, ultra textures, 3.6 GB on my GTX 770).

Its generally a waste of money to have the 4 GB version, though, as virtually no games will use that much at 1080p. Strongly recommend the GTX 770 2 GB for 1080p gaming, the 780 makes more sense to have at 1440p or possibly 1080p/120 Hz.


Really? This is not was I've read in the past, I've heard that the bus speed limits it, thanks for correcting me though, I'm going to have a read around as another guy also said the same thing as me on this thread.


I've heard that before, it is a myth. Bus width describes the memory bandwidth, and therefore speed, but has no affect on the memory capacity.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:31:38 PM

oxiide said:

I've heard that before, it is a myth. Bus width describes the memory bandwidth, and therefore speed, but has no affect on the memory capacity.


Thanks for the information, I've had a little look round and a lot of people say what I do too, but are corrected further down in the threads! You learn something new everyday. :) 
m
0
l
a c 592 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a c 385 Î Nvidia
June 21, 2014 1:34:03 PM

Don't believe it when people tell you a GTX 780 is overkill for a 1080p resolution. It can make all the difference, when playing certain games, between full maxed out settings and having to settle for less. The extra GB of VRAM is getting to be very useful these days. Even a game like Bioshock Infinite is using 2.4GB of VRAM on my 1080p rig. You would have to back off on the settings with a 770. All the same, the cost difference is very, very significant, so I'm sure you would be happy with the 770 2GB.

And I wouldn't hesitate to go for the 4GB version of the GTX 770. People tend to overthink these things, but the simple fact is that more VRAM is a good thing and will come in useful in some circumstances, even in a game like Bioshock Infinite, for example. We are in the era of Watch Dogs and the old notion that 2GB of VRAM is enough for 1080p is now over. Now, if you don't play Watch Dogs or full maxed out Bioshock Infinite, then 2GB should be plenty, but for the future, you're going to want more than 2GB.

Overall, the performance difference is about 15% between the two cards.


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_280X_Gaming_6...
m
1
l
June 21, 2014 1:35:37 PM

wolverine96 said:
Okay... so was I right? They are exactly the same performance-wise until you actually need more than 2GB? If that is the case, I would say get whichever version you think you need (2GB or 4GB). The only reason I recommended the 4GB version was because the GTX 780 has 3GB.


Sorry about that, I'm just repeating what I've heard frequently, I generally try to read up about something to make sure it's correct before I post and I thought I knew, 4gb is usually not necessary at 1080p.

m
0
l
a c 592 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a c 385 Î Nvidia
June 21, 2014 1:51:03 PM

guitarmatt99 said:

Sorry about that, I'm just repeating what I've heard frequently, I generally try to read up about something to make sure it's correct before I post and I thought I knew, 4gb is usually not necessary at 1080p.

I like your post. Just so you guys understand, there are certain things people say to support their favorite brand name video card. These things get repeated, then re-repeated and soon people start to take it as a fact. Always do your own research and don't just repeat things you have heard on an anonymous public forum.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:51:34 PM

wolverine96 said:
I would get the GTX 770. That should be plenty for 1920x1080, especially if you get the 4GB version.

Can you give me some websites/stores that you plan on buying from? I would like to take a look at what they have.


Well I leave in a country that speak different language,but i Will try to explain you.
This site is similar to ebay:
http://www.pik.ba/ and I will probably buy here: http://www.pik.ba/profil/PCHardware/

To to to graphic cards,just click like this: http://prntscr.com/3v5in3

To get price in dollars,divide or share,("/") number in KM with 1.45
So if price is 1000KM,that is 690$.

Sorry if I am making you trouble,and thank you bro.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 1:55:14 PM

17seconds said:
guitarmatt99 said:

Sorry about that, I'm just repeating what I've heard frequently, I generally try to read up about something to make sure it's correct before I post and I thought I knew, 4gb is usually not necessary at 1080p.

I like your post. Just so you guys understand, there are certain things people say to support their favorite brand name video card. These things get repeated, then re-repeated and soon people start to take it as a fact. Always do your own research and don't just repeat things you have heard on an anonymous public forum.


So if difference is about 15% for 2gb version,and for 4gb probably a little less,(example 12%),and gtx780 cost more fore like 70%,it is not worth to buy it?
m
0
l
a c 592 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a c 385 Î Nvidia
June 21, 2014 1:58:01 PM

If you really don't want to spend the extra for a GTX 780, then I'm sure you'll be happy with a GTX 770. It's pretty much the most popular high-end video card of this current generation. They are a really good deal these days, and really the only big difference is that you'll need to tweak your settings a little more. In the end, you probably won't notice the difference in graphics quality after you get everything tweaked the way you like it.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 2:03:49 PM

I would buy the 4GB GTX 770, but if you need to pay 50% more for a GTX 780, it will not be 50% faster. Look at the graph in 17seconds' earlier post.
m
0
l
June 21, 2014 2:12:45 PM

17seconds said:
If you really don't want to spend the extra for a GTX 780, then I'm sure you'll be happy with a GTX 770. It's pretty much the most popular high-end video card of this current generation. They are a really good deal these days, and really the only big difference is that you'll need to tweak your settings a little more. In the end, you probably won't notice the difference in graphics quality after you get everything tweaked the way you like it.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/


And what about r9 280x?
Asus radeon is one of the fastest,and it cost about 390$. On the other hand gtx770,cost about 70$ more,and 4gb cost 100$ more.
r9 280x has 3gb,and 384 bit,and more shading units etc

Which one is better 770 or r9?
m
0
l
a c 592 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a c 385 Î Nvidia
June 21, 2014 2:18:22 PM

gamer1411 said:
17seconds said:
If you really don't want to spend the extra for a GTX 780, then I'm sure you'll be happy with a GTX 770. It's pretty much the most popular high-end video card of this current generation. They are a really good deal these days, and really the only big difference is that you'll need to tweak your settings a little more. In the end, you probably won't notice the difference in graphics quality after you get everything tweaked the way you like it.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/


And what about r9 280x?
Asus radeon is one of the fastest,and it cost about 390$. On the other hand gtx770,cost about 70$ more,and 4gb cost 100$ more.
r9 280x has 3gb,and 384 bit,and more shading units etc

Which one is better 770 or r9?

Well, do you see the chart further up the page? Even a high-end factory overclocked 280x is a bit slower than a stock GTX 770. You also need to factor in things like PhysX, Adaptive VSync, HBAO+, etc., rather than just assume it's a simple price-performance proposition.

Also note that chart is making it clear that the extra VRAM is not making any difference at that resolution with those game settings.
m
1
l
June 22, 2014 4:14:15 AM

17seconds said:

I like your post. Just so you guys understand, there are certain things people say to support their favorite brand name video card. These things get repeated, then re-repeated and soon people start to take it as a fact. Always do your own research and don't just repeat things you have heard on an anonymous public forum.


I've corrected any posts further up with a strike so people don't get confused in the future, like I said, I've heard it frequently, even on these forums, but now I know. :) 

m
0
l
June 22, 2014 4:47:11 AM

another way to look at it is this!,most people say that the Radeon cards have a higher price to performance ratio,that is true,but to back up Nvidia people could say that they tend to be leading cards in bench marking! or whatever!.

what important really,is the exact model you get for your card,a brief example was the Stock R9 290/x! this is a very powerful card,amazing price to performance ratio,but it was set back by the reference cooling so much that you couldn't tap its true power without hitting 100 Degrees or around 90,no matter how strong the card was,you couldn't use up its juice without hearing thunder jets in your case and having very very hot temperatures,which is why if you get a non reference cooler such as a tri x,vapor x,twin frozr or whatever you can access this cards true power,and push it close to a 780TI.

Same with nvidia cards,the actual model you are buying makes a huge difference!,many are Overclocked,have better cooling,but could have a higher power intake and cost more!,if lets say you want to get the 770GTX,don't see a reason to run for the 780,that's great,but take a look at the very wide range of 770 cards! some are super-clocked,better cooling,higher VRAM and whatever,these things can make a big change on the end experience for you as the user!
m
1
l
a c 592 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a c 385 Î Nvidia
June 22, 2014 9:19:26 AM

The reason AMD cards cost less is because they sell far fewer than Nvidia, by almost 3 to 1. If they could charge more, the absolutely would, as in the days when the 7970 was selling for $550 when it was first released.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

But price-performance is only one part of the equation when making these types of decisions. Part of the reason Nvidia cards sell so much better is that they offer quite a few more options and graphics settings that can make a real difference for the end-user experience. We all know about PhysX, but Adaptive VSync is really the one that's worth the price of admission. And the fact that you can force things like FXAA and HBAO+ on nearly any game really allows for better graphics quality that you just can't get with an AMD card. Yes there are differences that go beyond "AMD card A sells for less than Nvidia card B". Some people get that, and some don't.
m
1
l
June 22, 2014 9:32:24 AM

17seconds said:
gamer1411 said:
17seconds said:
If you really don't want to spend the extra for a GTX 780, then I'm sure you'll be happy with a GTX 770. It's pretty much the most popular high-end video card of this current generation. They are a really good deal these days, and really the only big difference is that you'll need to tweak your settings a little more. In the end, you probably won't notice the difference in graphics quality after you get everything tweaked the way you like it.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/


And what about r9 280x?
Asus radeon is one of the fastest,and it cost about 390$. On the other hand gtx770,cost about 70$ more,and 4gb cost 100$ more.
r9 280x has 3gb,and 384 bit,and more shading units etc

Which one is better 770 or r9?

Well, do you see the chart further up the page? Even a high-end factory overclocked 280x is a bit slower than a stock GTX 770. You also need to factor in things like PhysX, Adaptive VSync, HBAO+, etc., rather than just assume it's a simple price-performance proposition.

Also note that chart is making it clear that the extra VRAM is not making any difference at that resolution with those game settings.


FireManDude said:
another way to look at it is this!,most people say that the Radeon cards have a higher price to performance ratio,that is true,but to back up Nvidia people could say that they tend to be leading cards in bench marking! or whatever!.

what important really,is the exact model you get for your card,a brief example was the Stock R9 290/x! this is a very powerful card,amazing price to performance ratio,but it was set back by the reference cooling so much that you couldn't tap its true power without hitting 100 Degrees or around 90,no matter how strong the card was,you couldn't use up its juice without hearing thunder jets in your case and having very very hot temperatures,which is why if you get a non reference cooler such as a tri x,vapor x,twin frozr or whatever you can access this cards true power,and push it close to a 780TI.

Same with nvidia cards,the actual model you are buying makes a huge difference!,many are Overclocked,have better cooling,but could have a higher power intake and cost more!,if lets say you want to get the 770GTX,don't see a reason to run for the 780,that's great,but take a look at the very wide range of 770 cards! some are super-clocked,better cooling,higher VRAM and whatever,these things can make a big change on the end experience for you as the user!


What gtx 770 4gb do you suggest? Not the one that is most expensive,please something in the middle.What about gigabyte?
m
0
l
June 22, 2014 1:00:14 PM

17seconds said:
The reason AMD cards cost less is because they sell far fewer than Nvidia, by almost 3 to 1. If they could charge more, the absolutely would, as in the days when the 7970 was selling for $550 when it was first released.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

But price-performance is only one part of the equation when making these types of decisions. Part of the reason Nvidia cards sell so much better is that they offer quite a few more options and graphics settings that can make a real difference for the end-user experience. We all know about PhysX, but Adaptive VSync is really the one that's worth the price of admission. And the fact that you can force things like FXAA and HBAO+ on nearly any game really allows for better graphics quality that you just can't get with an AMD card. Yes there are differences that go beyond "AMD card A sells for less than Nvidia card B". Some people get that, and some don't.


Any one could retort with "no no mantle is better its best" lol but i wont. whatever ahah,the truth is that there is a feature race between the two companies!,they strive to bring similar features to the users so that they stand on top!,but yeah nvidia cards having amazing capabilities.

http://www.amazon.com/MSI-Computer-Corp-N770-2GD5/dp/B0... Twin Frozr variation!
http://www.amazon.com/GTX770-DC2OC-2GD5-GeForce-256-bit... from what i see this is very quite and also nice non refrence cooling

http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GDDR5-2GB-WINDFORCE-Grap... Windforce with the 3 fans
http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-Superclocked-Dual-Link-Graph... a very nice complete but expensive package! overclocked,4GB VRam,large heatsink and fans!
m
0
l
June 22, 2014 1:17:50 PM

17seconds said:
The reason AMD cards cost less is because they sell far fewer than Nvidia, by almost 3 to 1. If they could charge more, the absolutely would, as in the days when the 7970 was selling for $550 when it was first released.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

But price-performance is only one part of the equation when making these types of decisions. Part of the reason Nvidia cards sell so much better is that they offer quite a few more options and graphics settings that can make a real difference for the end-user experience. We all know about PhysX, but Adaptive VSync is really the one that's worth the price of admission. And the fact that you can force things like FXAA and HBAO+ on nearly any game really allows for better graphics quality that you just can't get with an AMD card. Yes there are differences that go beyond "AMD card A sells for less than Nvidia card B". Some people get that, and some don't.


Hey bro just one more question.
Which one would you buy?
http://www.pik.ba/artikal/12870926/evga-gtx-770-sc-acx-...
http://www.pik.ba/artikal/12893074/gigabyte-gtx770-oc-4...

evga with 2gb,or gigabyte windforce with 4gb. I do planning to play only on 1920*1080 screen,but I am planning to play watchdogs,and as you can see some people are saying that it uses about 3.5gb sometimes.
What is difference between this 2 cards and which one would you pick?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 592 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a c 385 Î Nvidia
June 22, 2014 1:39:50 PM

gamer1411 said:
Hey bro just one more question.
Which one would you buy?
http://www.pik.ba/artikal/12870926/evga-gtx-770-sc-acx-...
http://www.pik.ba/artikal/12893074/gigabyte-gtx770-oc-4...

evga with 2gb,or gigabyte windforce with 4gb. I do planning to play only on 1920*1080 screen,but I am planning to play watchdogs,and as you can see some people are saying that it uses about 3.5gb sometimes.
What is difference between this 2 cards and which one would you pick?

Between those two at the same price, I would easily take the Gigabyte with 4GB of VRAM. A lot of people like EVGA for their customer service, which is a consideration. But just looking at those two cards, the Gigabyte is a clear winner for these reasons:

- The Gigabyte card uses all custom upgraded "Ultra-Durable" components, while the EVGA card under that ACX cooler uses all reference components.
- The 4GBs of VRAM will give you some peace of mind for future games that might require more than 2GB of VRAM. At the same price, the Gigabyte card is a bargain.
- The Gigabyte card is factory overclocked at 1189 MHz, while the EVGA card is clocked at 1111 MHz, so the Gigabyte card will be faster out of the box.

I think you'll be happy with that Gigabyte card, which will run very cool and quiet while putting out high framerates and tackling more VRAM intensive situations with relative ease.
Share
June 22, 2014 3:17:39 PM

I agree.
m
0
l
!