Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Gtx 770 or R9 280x

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 27, 2014 12:05:24 PM

Hello everybody . i need your help in choosing the card for next 2 , 3 years As the title says r9 280x or gtx 770 For Future proof . Games i am interested in are Crysis 3 , Watch dogs , Ac4 , Hitman absolution , Bf4 a little at 1080p . is it a wise choice to choose 2gb over a 3gb card ? Which has a better driver support now a days ? They both are almost the same where i live but r9 280x is a bit cheaper than gtx 770.I also read in a Forum that gtx 770 cannot play watch dogs on ultra due to its insufficient Vram is it true ? On my Own i was lean towards r9 280x. What would be your choice and why? Thanks in advance >_< I appreciate every suggestion.

More about : gtx 770 280x

August 27, 2014 12:10:47 PM

Ahsankhaan said:
Hello everybody . i need your help in choosing the card for next 2 , 3 years As the title says r9 280x or gtx 770 For Future proof . Games i am interested in are Crysis 3 , Watch dogs , Ac4 , Hitman absolution , Bf4 a little at 1080p . is it a wise choice to choose 2gb over a 3gb card ? Which has a better driver support now a days ? They both are almost the same where i live but r9 280x is a bit cheaper than gtx 770.I also read in a Forum that gtx 770 cannot play watch dogs on ultra due to its insufficient Vram is it true ? On my Own i was lean towards r9 280x. What would be your choice and why? Thanks in advance >_< I appreciate every suggestion.


without a doubt get the 770 as it flattens the 280x at 1080p games plus nvidia has more cool features than amd so getting the card would be a plus for you.. please remember to choose the answer as it helps develop our score on the forum
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:17:43 PM

The 770 doesn't "flatten" the 280x. They are comparable cards that trade blows in most games, nvidia pulls ahead in a few more titles. Cost is also a factor, I dont know what the going rate is or how tight you need you're budget to be but I'm willing to be the 280x can be had for less than a 770. That being said if you can swing it the 770 IS the better card, by about 2-6fps in most games, some higher, some lower.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 27, 2014 12:21:45 PM

getdamafiaonyou said:
The 770 doesn't "flatten" the 280x. They are comparable cards that trade blows in most games, nvidia pulls ahead in a few more titles. Cost is also a factor, I dont know what the going rate is or how tight you need you're budget to be but I'm willing to be the 280x can be had for less than a 770. That being said if you can swing it the 770 IS the better card, by about 2-6fps in most games, some higher, some lower.


i object to that .. coupled with a good enough cpu the 770 destroys the 280 with far more than just 2-6 fps ..get your fact straight .. nvidia plays better on most games because most games are optimised for nvidia cards.. you will get a noticeable boost in fps
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:26:42 PM

If you could squeeze out another $50 you could get a 290, which would be much better than both.
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:27:38 PM

Anheanz said:
If you could squeeze out another $50 you could get a 290, which would be much better than both.


This.
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:29:19 PM

getdamafiaonyou said:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/10/09/ms...

You can object all you want. That is proof. As I said the 770 is the better card, but it's a marginal difference, a few fps. that is not DESTROYING a graphics card.


thats crap ..all that is theory .. i have experience with the mentioned cards because i was obsessed with pc gaming and was buying cards alot and even getting some used ..the 770 is marginally stronger .. the margin is greater than 6 fps so cut ther crap
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:31:56 PM

So take your word over reputable websites that do benchmarks that most of us here on this forum use as reference when purchasing cards? You tell me to get my facts straight, I show you proof, and you deny it because of you own personal experience? because I owed a 770, and I can tell you that those benchmarks were spot on. Then a 290, then a second 290, now a 290x. Haven't seen any discrepancies with what bench marking sites get and what I get.
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:40:01 PM

Forgot to mention that price difference is not a bit .The gtx 770 is costlier does it really worth the cost i mean it has 2gb vram while r9 280x has 3gb.Does this factor affect gaming performance
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:42:47 PM

If you game over 1080p yes. However if the price isn't a huge concern you should try to do as Anheanz said and get a 290. Much better offering then the 770 or 280x.
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:42:51 PM

getdamafiaonyou said:
So take your word over reputable websites that do benchmarks that most of us here on this forum use as reference when purchasing cards? You tell me to get my facts straight, I show you proof, and you deny it because of you own personal experience? because I owed a 770, and I can tell you that those benchmarks were spot on. Then a 290, then a second 290, now a 290x. Haven't seen any discrepancies with what bench marking sites get and what I get.


didnt say the chart was off my a mile i just said i had personal experience with the card and performed better than the chart stated.. dont get it twisted you had your experience and i had mine ,, its just my experience on a 1080 resolution stated otherwise .. on lower res the card would be 6 fps apart but a 1080 you can see the 770 stepping up to the plate
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:46:02 PM

jbrown156 said:
getdamafiaonyou said:
So take your word over reputable websites that do benchmarks that most of us here on this forum use as reference when purchasing cards? You tell me to get my facts straight, I show you proof, and you deny it because of you own personal experience? because I owed a 770, and I can tell you that those benchmarks were spot on. Then a 290, then a second 290, now a 290x. Haven't seen any discrepancies with what bench marking sites get and what I get.


didnt say the chart was off my a mile i just said i had personal experience with the card and performed better than the chart stated.. dont get it twisted you had your experience and i had mine ,, its just my experience on a 1080 resolution stated otherwise .. on lower res the card would be 6 fps apart but a 1080 you can see the 770 stepping up to the plate


Which I agreed with, but making statements like those benchmarks are crap, or the 770 destroys the 280x is just personal opinion without any provided evidence. The 770 is the better card, and since OP said price isn't a issue, get the 770, but in my opinion you should hold out and pay the extra for the 290, as it's a much nicer card than either of those.
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:46:05 PM

Ahsankhaan said:
Forgot to mention that price difference is not a bit .The gtx 770 is costlier does it really worth the cost i mean it has 2gb vram while r9 280x has 3gb.Does this factor affect gaming performance


vram only affects memory hungry games ..but not always performance in general..
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:46:57 PM

GTX 770 is better quality, have better cooling, more stable drivers. If you are going to use that graphic card for the next 4 years or so I suggest to go for GTX770 if you're going to use it for the next 2 years and then replace go for R9 280x :) 
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 12:54:11 PM

still think you should go for the 760 because that will prevent you from buying another gpu 2 years from now .. with the 280x you will probably have to upgrade again soon..remember to choose the correct answer for the question
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 7:29:50 PM

Is it fanboism? I would play watch dogs bf4 crysis 3 hitman absolution would they run on everything ultra on gtx 770 as it has 2gb vram and these r pwerhungry games.?
m
0
l
August 27, 2014 7:49:30 PM

No, it's not fanboism, it's just difference of opinions. 770 is a better card, but the 290, not 280x, is a much better card for only 50 bucks more. As for those games, I cant remember my bf4, but I want to say personally it wouldnt hit 60fps at ultra (I may be wrong it's been awhile) but I can guarantee you wont get acceptable fps with crysis 3 at ultra. As for watch dogs/hitman I have no experience.
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 2:07:37 AM

So the gtx 770 cannot play bf4 at ultra with 60+ fps?and r9 290 is alot for me
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 2:11:52 AM

Ahsankhaan said:
So the gtx 770 cannot play bf4 at ultra with 60+ fps?and r9 290 is alot for me


it can but it will be around 60fps, definitelly not above 100 (depends if you're in combat or not it will go from 50 to 90)
That is if you play on 1920x1080 monitor with 60Hz
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 2:32:57 AM

I will play on 1080p . R9 280x is cheaper here than gtx 770 and its 3gb as well while gtx 770 is just 2gb.Can it still play memory hungry games on ultra with 2gb of memory
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 2:36:06 AM

2gb vs 3gb vram only makes a difference if you play on multiple monitors or on resolution bigger than 1920x1080 at the moment. Gtx 770 has more stable drivers, is cooler and 280x series had artifacting problems. I also was in a dilemma and I bought GTX770 in the end.. did not regret it :) 
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 3:21:36 AM

So is it worth paying more for gtx 770 ? I heard that it cannot play watch dogs on ultra due to insufficient vram . Would the low vram bother me in the near future games and would it be a factor for not letting me play games on ultra . I will play on single 1080p monitor . Thanks
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 4:47:16 AM

I will suggest R9 280x if you want to pay less for similar performance to 770.
it will only give you little less fps on watchdogs than nvidia
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 6:29:24 AM

And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra

m
0
l

Best solution

August 28, 2014 6:34:08 AM

Ahsankhaan said:
And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra



vram is never usually a big factor in playing games so you wont have to worry.. the 760 or the 770 should be more than efficient enough for any games on the market for the next 3 years or so..
Share
August 28, 2014 7:18:33 AM

jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra



vram is never usually a big factor in playing games so you wont have to worry.. the 760 or the 770 should be more than efficient enough for any games on the market for the next 3 years or so..

I read at many youtube comments that with 2gb vram we cannot run texture on ultra on watch dogs is it true?
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 7:19:49 AM

Ahsankhaan said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra



vram is never usually a big factor in playing games so you wont have to worry.. the 760 or the 770 should be more than efficient enough for any games on the market for the next 3 years or so..

I read at many youtube comments that with 2gb vram we cannot run texture on ultra on watch dogs is it true?


no its not true .. the reccommended for watch dogs so happens to be 2gb
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 8:15:51 AM

Ahsankhaan said:
hey what about this card ? its only available in reference design where i live. is it ok to buy it ? What about heat up and noise ? i have a closed casing and cannot use aftermarket coolers
http://karachi.olx.com.pk/r9-290-4gb-512bit-iid-6951169...


why didnt you put this out earlier .. the 290 is more than the 770 or any other card mentioned in this thread
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 8:24:37 AM

jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
hey what about this card ? its only available in reference design where i live. is it ok to buy it ? What about heat up and noise ? i have a closed casing and cannot use aftermarket coolers
http://karachi.olx.com.pk/r9-290-4gb-512bit-iid-6951169...


why didnt you put this out earlier .. the 290 is more than the 770 or any other card mentioned in this thread

well its has a reference cooler ... and would be too hot in my oppinion and i cannot get a aftermarket cooler .
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 8:29:50 AM

Ahsankhaan said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
hey what about this card ? its only available in reference design where i live. is it ok to buy it ? What about heat up and noise ? i have a closed casing and cannot use aftermarket coolers
http://karachi.olx.com.pk/r9-290-4gb-512bit-iid-6951169...


why didnt you put this out earlier .. the 290 is more than the 770 or any other card mentioned in this thread

well its has a reference cooler ... and would be too hot in my oppinion and i cannot get a aftermarket cooler .


oh check ebay or amazon maybe they have after market coolers in stock if you decide to buy the 290 and wait for the cooler to arrive..
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 8:49:15 AM

jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra



vram is never usually a big factor in playing games so you wont have to worry.. the 760 or the 770 should be more than efficient enough for any games on the market for the next 3 years or so..

I read at many youtube comments that with 2gb vram we cannot run texture on ultra on watch dogs is it true?


no its not true .. the reccommended for watch dogs so happens to be 2gb


Watch Dogs at 1080p and Ultra textures eats up about 3.6 GB of VRAM on most systems. The in-game menu even warns you that you'll need 3 GB for Ultra, and they aren't kidding. For someone with such an attitude in this thread, you seem to need to get your own facts straight more often than not.

Personally, i have a 4 GB version of the 770 and I can play Watch Dogs at Ultra and it runs fine (insofar as Watch Dogs ever runs "fine"). But for a comparable price as a 4 GB 770, the R9 290 is a way smarter purchase. I have no idea how a 2 GB 770 handles Watch Dogs; or a 3 GB R9 280X for that matter. Its a very skippable game in any case, I'd personally rather just run it on High rather than spend extra money building a system around it.
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 9:14:01 AM

oxiide said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra



vram is never usually a big factor in playing games so you wont have to worry.. the 760 or the 770 should be more than efficient enough for any games on the market for the next 3 years or so..

I read at many youtube comments that with 2gb vram we cannot run texture on ultra on watch dogs is it true?


no its not true .. the reccommended for watch dogs so happens to be 2gb


Watch Dogs at 1080p and Ultra textures eats up about 3.6 GB of VRAM on most systems. The in-game menu even warns you that you'll need 3 GB for Ultra, and they aren't kidding. For someone with such an attitude in this thread, you seem to need to get your own facts straight more often than not.

Personally, i have a 4 GB version of the 770 and I can play Watch Dogs at Ultra and it runs fine (insofar as Watch Dogs ever runs "fine"). But for a comparable price as a 4 GB 770, the R9 290 is a way smarter purchase. I have no idea how a 2 GB 770 handles Watch Dogs; or a 3 GB R9 280X for that matter. Its a very skippable game in any case, I'd personally rather just run it on High rather than spend extra money building a system around it.

i can get r9 290 but it would be reference edition is it ok ?
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 9:23:47 AM

ehhh, reference is alright, but its kinda loud and runs hotter than non-reference. Performance should be about the same, just make sure you case has good airflow and good cooling
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 9:25:06 AM

Anheanz said:
ehhh, reference is alright, but its kinda loud and runs hotter than non-reference. Performance should be about the same, just make sure you case has good airflow and good cooling


na i dont have any cooling system :| nor any Good airflow
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 10:14:24 AM

Ahsankhaan said:
oxiide said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra



vram is never usually a big factor in playing games so you wont have to worry.. the 760 or the 770 should be more than efficient enough for any games on the market for the next 3 years or so..

I read at many youtube comments that with 2gb vram we cannot run texture on ultra on watch dogs is it true?


no its not true .. the reccommended for watch dogs so happens to be 2gb


Watch Dogs at 1080p and Ultra textures eats up about 3.6 GB of VRAM on most systems. The in-game menu even warns you that you'll need 3 GB for Ultra, and they aren't kidding. For someone with such an attitude in this thread, you seem to need to get your own facts straight more often than not.

Personally, i have a 4 GB version of the 770 and I can play Watch Dogs at Ultra and it runs fine (insofar as Watch Dogs ever runs "fine"). But for a comparable price as a 4 GB 770, the R9 290 is a way smarter purchase. I have no idea how a 2 GB 770 handles Watch Dogs; or a 3 GB R9 280X for that matter. Its a very skippable game in any case, I'd personally rather just run it on High rather than spend extra money building a system around it.

i can get r9 290 but it would be reference edition is it ok ?


Honestly if this is only for 1080p, you don't need a 290 anyway. I was just trying to illustrate how poorly priced the 4 GB GTX 770 is. If it were me, I'd go with an R9 280X from a good manufacturer (Asus, MSI, Sapphire or whatever) and if you need to play Watch Dogs with "merely" High textures, chances are you would still be happy with it. Watch Dogs is an oddball game, and doesn't really represent how most games run.

The 770 is a bit faster than the 280X, that's true, but only by a few percent here or there. As was said earlier, they tend to trade blows in most titles. And in AMD-sponsored titles (Battlefield 4 comes to mind), the R9 280X is sometimes bit faster. Practically speaking, they should be considered about as close as two competing cards ever are.
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 11:11:35 AM

oxiide said:
Ahsankhaan said:
oxiide said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
jbrown156 said:
Ahsankhaan said:
And what about the vram of gtx 770 does it bother in running games on ultra



vram is never usually a big factor in playing games so you wont have to worry.. the 760 or the 770 should be more than efficient enough for any games on the market for the next 3 years or so..

I read at many youtube comments that with 2gb vram we cannot run texture on ultra on watch dogs is it true?


no its not true .. the reccommended for watch dogs so happens to be 2gb


Watch Dogs at 1080p and Ultra textures eats up about 3.6 GB of VRAM on most systems. The in-game menu even warns you that you'll need 3 GB for Ultra, and they aren't kidding. For someone with such an attitude in this thread, you seem to need to get your own facts straight more often than not.

Personally, i have a 4 GB version of the 770 and I can play Watch Dogs at Ultra and it runs fine (insofar as Watch Dogs ever runs "fine"). But for a comparable price as a 4 GB 770, the R9 290 is a way smarter purchase. I have no idea how a 2 GB 770 handles Watch Dogs; or a 3 GB R9 280X for that matter. Its a very skippable game in any case, I'd personally rather just run it on High rather than spend extra money building a system around it.

i can get r9 290 but it would be reference edition is it ok ?


Honestly if this is only for 1080p, you don't need a 290 anyway. I was just trying to illustrate how poorly priced the 4 GB GTX 770 is. If it were me, I'd go with an R9 280X from a good manufacturer (Asus, MSI, Sapphire or whatever) and if you need to play Watch Dogs with "merely" High textures, chances are you would still be happy with it. Watch Dogs is an oddball game, and doesn't really represent how most games run.

The 770 is a bit faster than the 280X, that's true, but only by a few percent here or there. As was said earlier, they tend to trade blows in most titles. And in AMD-sponsored titles (Battlefield 4 comes to mind), the R9 280X is sometimes bit faster. Practically speaking, they should be considered about as close as two competing cards ever are.

r9 290 is not that expensive here i can get that if reference model is ok . i need to run textures on ultra . Here r9 290 is only available in reference model on the other hand i can grab r9 280x or gtx 770 frm manufacturers . They are available here
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 11:25:12 AM

Can you purchase a aftermarket cooler for the 290? One that you install yourself? the 290 would be vastly better than the other two options, it just runs hot and the reference cooler sounds like a jet engine.
m
0
l
August 28, 2014 1:04:45 PM

getdamafiaonyou said:
Can you purchase a aftermarket cooler for the 290? One that you install yourself? the 290 would be vastly better than the other two options, it just runs hot and the reference cooler sounds like a jet engine.


Aftermarket coolers are not available here . and i cannot bear sound of a jet engine lol . R9 280x dirvers are buggy? how about r9 280x toxic or from asus ? is it better than gtx 770 , i saw in watch dogs that texture at ultra needs 3gb card so after new driver update r9 280x would be able to run it on ultra with good fps
m
0
l
!