Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R9 280X vs GTX 770

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Asus
  • Cooling
  • Graphics
  • Gtx
  • Graphics Cards
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 6, 2014 6:05:50 AM

I know there are threads of this already but I want a fresh opinion. I have two options, the ASUS R9 280X 3GB and a ASUS GTX 770 both with DirectCUII cooling.

What one do you recommend and why? I know the 770 has a higher clock but the 280x has mantle..?

Confused :p 

More about : 280x gtx 770

a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 6, 2014 6:16:48 AM

I'd go with 280X for the fact that it has more VRAM and will help in heavily textured games.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
September 6, 2014 6:19:26 AM

Lol why their prices are so close? Go with the 770 but if the 4gb version is in your range of budget get it!
m
0
l
Related resources
September 6, 2014 6:23:45 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
I'd go with 280X for the fact that it has more VRAM and will help in heavily textured games.


Like?
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 6:24:11 AM

Denis Stoikovski said:
Lol why their prices are so close? Go with the 770 but if the 4gb version is in your range of budget get it!

I asked for a reason

m
0
l
September 6, 2014 6:31:41 AM

The 280X gives you a better gaming experience than the 770 in all games that are optimized for AMD, for example: Battlefield 4. It costs less money, has more RAM and is just better. The price of the 4GB version of the 770 is so high that u can almost get an R9 290 with it so it would not be a good option.

I prefer the 280X over the GTX-770. Go for it
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 6:41:01 AM

RevolutionHD said:
The 280X gives you a better gaming experience than the 770 in all games that are optimized for AMD, for example: Battlefield 4. It costs less money, has more RAM and is just better. The price of the 4GB version of the 770 is so high that u can almost get an R9 290 with it so it would not be a good option.

I prefer the 280X over the GTX-770. Go for it

Ty for the deatiled answer
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 6, 2014 6:47:35 AM

The 770 4GB is a no brainer, there just won't be any difference on FHD or 2k. Maybe a FPS or 2 with high AA, but the prices of 770 4GB are usually close to 290s so we'd go out of context.

280X has the perfect VRAM size: 3GB, it can handle games like heavily modded Skyrim with ease thanks to more VRAM, 770 is just not good enough to utilize the 4GB if its provided to it. 280X is also cheaper so its a better overall card if you don't care for the extra power it takes.

Both will be comfortable on ultra and if you want to record your gameplay, 770 is a viable option with its ShadowPlay, but other than that (and more energy efficiency), I don't see much in 770's extra 10 bucks tag.
m
0
l
a c 205 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 302 U Graphics card
September 6, 2014 6:59:54 AM

Both cards are in the same performance tier. Depending on the game, the differences are detectable only by a synthetic benchmark, not by actual gameplay.

Graphics card designers select the appropriate balance of specs such as shaders, clocks, vram, etc to meet a certain price/performance point.

You will get fair value at every price point. Don't stew over the decision.

Mantle allows the graphics driver to execute with less cpu overhead. It is of minor benefit when using a strong cpu like you probably have if you are considering these cards.

Vram is of value if your game needs it. Skyrim mods are notorious for consuming vram.
Past that, it is probably better to spend your vram dollars on a faster card in the first place.
Read this:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Pe...

As a rule, the R9 cards run hotter and take more power than their Nvidia equivalents. They get their performance by being factory overclocked. That is why they will come with fancy coolers.

Do not plan on much fro overclocking. Vendors are wise to overclocking and bin their chips. The best ones go into factory superclocked versions to be sold at a higher price. I think you gat fair value for the extra paid.

My sense is that most prefer the nvidia drivers.

I have a method to pick between equally performing products.
Go to newegg and find the candidates.
Filter on the most reviews by verified buyers.
Then look at what percent of the reviews have one or two eggs indicating some sort of a problem.
In particular, look at the reasons for a bad review. Some are not very valid, so exclude those.

For the R9-280X you get 35% unfavorable.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
For the GTX770, you get 16% unfavorable
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I might prefer this evga version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


m
2
l
a b 4 Gaming
September 6, 2014 7:12:43 AM

RevolutionHD said:
The 280X gives you a better gaming experience than the 770 in all games that are optimized for AMD, for example: Battlefield 4. It costs less money, has more RAM and is just better. The price of the 4GB version of the 770 is so high that u can almost get an R9 290 with it so it would not be a good option.

I prefer the 280X over the GTX-770. Go for it


Dude rly? Can't you see that the difference here is 10$? Or whatever is that valut
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:14:09 AM

geofelt said:
Both cards are in the same performance tier. Depending on the game, the differences are detectable only by a synthetic benchmark, not by actual gameplay.

Graphics card designers select the appropriate balance of specs such as shaders, clocks, vram, etc to meet a certain price/performance point.

You will get fair value at every price point. Don't stew over the decision.

Mantle allows the graphics driver to execute with less cpu overhead. It is of minor benefit when using a strong cpu like you probably have if you are considering these cards.

Vram is of value if your game needs it. Skyrim mods are notorious for consuming vram.
Past that, it is probably better to spend your vram dollars on a faster card in the first place.
Read this:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Pe...

As a rule, the R9 cards run hotter and take more power than their Nvidia equivalents. They get their performance by being factory overclocked. That is why they will come with fancy coolers.

Do not plan on much fro overclocking. Vendors are wise to overclocking and bin their chips. The best ones go into factory superclocked versions to be sold at a higher price. I think you gat fair value for the extra paid.

My sense is that most prefer the nvidia drivers.

I have a method to pick between equally performing products.
Go to newegg and find the candidates.
Filter on the most reviews by verified buyers.
Then look at what percent of the reviews have one or two eggs indicating some sort of a problem.
In particular, look at the reasons for a bad review. Some are not very valid, so exclude those.

For the R9-280X you get 35% unfavorable.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
For the GTX770, you get 16% unfavorable
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I might prefer this evga version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



Going to be using the i5 4690k and OC it a bit with a Noctua DH-15. Also thanks for the answer
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:15:02 AM

Denis Stoikovski said:
RevolutionHD said:
The 280X gives you a better gaming experience than the 770 in all games that are optimized for AMD, for example: Battlefield 4. It costs less money, has more RAM and is just better. The price of the 4GB version of the 770 is so high that u can almost get an R9 290 with it so it would not be a good option.

I prefer the 280X over the GTX-770. Go for it


Dude rly? Can't you see that the difference here is 10$? Or whatever is that valut

It is 10 euro difference for the 2gb 70 not a 4gb.

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 6, 2014 7:17:28 AM

If you want to OC a bit, then get nothing higher than CM Hyper EVO 212, or D14 at max if you care about noise too much. D15 is of no use over D14 as it only has more memory clearance and better width, but is really a pretty penny, would give you a couple better C than D14, which won't matter on moderate OCing.
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:17:43 AM

On newegg alot of people are saying the r9 280x is artifacting like crazy??
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:26:03 AM

  1.  
MeteorsRaining said:
If you want to OC a bit, then get nothing higher than CM Hyper EVO 212, or D14 at max if you care about noise too much. D15 is of no use over D14 as it only has more memory clearance and better width, but is really a pretty penny, would give you a couple better C than D14, which won't matter on moderate OCing.

Well i plan to OC to 4/4.2 would a hyper 212 EVO be ok even then? And it would be nice to save some money
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 6, 2014 7:27:15 AM

The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:31:13 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:35:29 AM

Undying89 said:
MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.


Nowhere did he say it wasn't.
m
1
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 6, 2014 7:38:51 AM

Undying89 said:
MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.


And a lot more stable.
m
2
l
September 6, 2014 7:42:09 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
Undying89 said:
MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.


And a lot more stable.


Leaning towards the 770 now then
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
September 6, 2014 7:44:19 AM

jty0yt said:
Denis Stoikovski said:
RevolutionHD said:
The 280X gives you a better gaming experience than the 770 in all games that are optimized for AMD, for example: Battlefield 4. It costs less money, has more RAM and is just better. The price of the 4GB version of the 770 is so high that u can almost get an R9 290 with it so it would not be a good option.

I prefer the 280X over the GTX-770. Go for it


Dude rly? Can't you see that the difference here is 10$? Or whatever is that valut

It is 10 euro difference for the 2gb 70 not a 4gb.
So what? The 770 is less powerful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY8FZnNgxMk now you get the facts! They're almost equal in this situation 770 will be the better choice cuz its only 10$ or euro idk more then the 280x plus ati cards heat more than nvidia.


Undying89 said:
MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.


m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:49:07 AM

jty0yt said:
MeteorsRaining said:
Undying89 said:
MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.


And a lot more stable.


Leaning towards the 770 now then


Go for 4GB version. 2GB vram is so last year.
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:50:49 AM

Undying89 said:
jty0yt said:
MeteorsRaining said:
Undying89 said:
MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.


And a lot more stable.


Leaning towards the 770 now then


Go for 4GB version. 2GB vram is so last year.


"So last year" is such a good reason...

m
0
l
September 6, 2014 7:55:27 AM

jty0yt said:
Undying89 said:
jty0yt said:
MeteorsRaining said:
Undying89 said:
MeteorsRaining said:
The R9 280X is just an overclocked version of the 7970 so it is bound to be a bit unstable. And that particular version does artifact a lot.


And what is GTX770? Overclocked version of GTX680. Get your facts straight.


And a lot more stable.


Leaning towards the 770 now then


Go for 4GB version. 2GB vram is so last year.


"So last year" is such a good reason...



Playing Dead Rising 3 with my 280X and game is using 2.8GB Vram, see my point? Its Watch Dogs all over again.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 6, 2014 8:04:44 AM

770 has NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever in its 2GB and 4GB versions no matter wheather you play on FHD, 2k or even tri FHD.

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

Quote:
There isn’t a lot of difference between the cards at 1920×1080 or at 2560×1600. We only start to see minimal differences at 5760×1080, and even so, there is rarely a frame or two difference. If we start to add even more AA, in most cases, the frame rates will drop to unplayable on both cards.


770 just isn't good enough to utilize 4GB of VRAM.
m
0
l
September 6, 2014 4:13:16 PM

4GB 770 is better for higher resoultions, and For SLI. Basically, the 770s GPU is not powerful enough to fully use the higher Vram without adding more latency.
m
0
l
September 9, 2014 6:45:38 AM

That EVGA one is too pricy for its performance. Add 20 bucks and get an R9 290 (as good as GTX-780)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2014 7:04:45 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
770 just isn't good enough to utilize 4GB of VRAM.


Its good enough to "utilize" it, it just won't unless the game calls for it. The problem is, Watch Dogs is practically the only game available that actually puts enough data into VRAM to use more than about 2 GB at 1080p. Therefore the benchmarks will show the same performance between the two. Test Watch Dogs with Ultra textures and there will be a difference, albeit a very niche one.

A far better question is whether or not the GTX 770 4 GB is worth its price when R9 290's can be found so close. Spoiler: it isn't.

Mac266 said:
Basically, the 770s GPU is not powerful enough to fully use the higher Vram without adding more latency.


At 1440p, where that extra VRAM becomes more useful, the GPU is separately at its limit anyway. It has nothing to do with "latency."
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 9, 2014 7:25:29 AM

oxiide said:
MeteorsRaining said:
770 just isn't good enough to utilize 4GB of VRAM.


Its good enough to "utilize" it, it just won't unless the game calls for it. The problem is, Watch Dogs is practically the only game available that actually puts enough data into VRAM to use more than about 2 GB at 1080p. Therefore the benchmarks will show the same performance between the two. Test Watch Dogs with Ultra textures and there will be a difference, albeit a very niche one.


I fear you're wrong here. Games like BF4 and Crysis 3 can easily use 2GB+ VRAM, but seeing the seeing the 4GB vs 2GB comparision here (http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...), I'm not too impressed with the difference.

Also, surely 4GB VRAM will be better than 2GB, but not on this card. He can get a 290 which is way better than 770 for the same price as 4GB variant.

I've had a big big discussion with some other members here (http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2287728/gtx-770-...), you may want to check that out. Surely WD will get a bit better results, but a couple of FPS more isn't of any worth compare to the performance boost.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2014 8:50:30 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
oxiide said:
MeteorsRaining said:
770 just isn't good enough to utilize 4GB of VRAM.


Its good enough to "utilize" it, it just won't unless the game calls for it. The problem is, Watch Dogs is practically the only game available that actually puts enough data into VRAM to use more than about 2 GB at 1080p. Therefore the benchmarks will show the same performance between the two. Test Watch Dogs with Ultra textures and there will be a difference, albeit a very niche one.


I fear you're wrong here. Games like BF4 and Crysis 3 can easily use 2GB+ VRAM, but seeing the seeing the 4GB vs 2GB comparision here (http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...), I'm not too impressed with the difference.

Also, surely 4GB VRAM will be better than 2GB, but not on this card. He can get a 290 which is way better than 770 for the same price as 4GB variant.

I've had a big big discussion with some other members here (http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2287728/gtx-770-...), you may want to check that out. Surely WD will get a bit better results, but a couple of FPS more isn't of any worth compare to the performance boost.


Battlefield 4 at ultra detail and 1080p sits stubbornly at 2 GB on my system. I have 4 GB available for it. Watch Dogs has no problem eating up to 3.7 GB at times as long as I have textures set to Ultra. I have no personal experience with Crysis 3; I'll take your word for it.

None of this, however, means the 770 4 GB "can't utilize" its VRAM. Of course it can. I have never seen more mythology surrounding a video card SKU than this one.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Ĉ ASUS
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 9, 2014 9:33:27 AM


^Its not that BF4 won't utilize 4GB, it will on a better GPU like 780, everything maxed out, just not on 770.


^Won't require 4Gb, but can go above 2GB in Crysis 3.

A word from that thread:

JackNaylorPE said:
Agreed.....4Gb gives you nothing at 1920 x 1080. as you can see here, even in games that use more than 2 GB, it has absolutely no effect on performance. Unless you have two cards in SLI, you will not be able to observe any difference in any game and even this will require measuring tools and not be observable to the eyes unless your eyes are capable of telling the difference of 2 fps

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

Quote:
There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.


At bigger resolutions ? Let's look at the test numbers....

Quote:
We only start to see minimal differences at 5760×1080, and even so, there is rarely a frame or two difference. If we start to add even more AA, in most cases, the frame rates will drop to unplayable on both cards.

Let’s only look at the games where there is more than a single FPS difference between the two GTX 770s.

Of those five games, two of them are unplayable at 5760×1080 although in these cases, 4GB GTX 770 SLI would finally make some sense over 2GB GTX 770 SLI. That only leaves Lost Planet 2 and two racing games that gain some advantage by choosing a single GTX 770 4GB card over the single GTX 770 2GB. And in Lost Planet 2, we were able to add even higher anti-aliasing – from 8xAA to CSAA8XQ and to CSAA32X – but the performance difference was greatest with 8xAA.




What I'm trying to prove isn't that 770 is weak, nowhere near that. It just won't utilize 4GB not because games don't require it, but simply because the GPU can't.

The 4GB will come handy ONLY in SLI. You may get a couple of FPS on 4GB, but,

Simple enough, a 290 would be a lot better buy for 4GB varaint's price.
m
0
l
September 22, 2014 9:05:45 AM

Meteors is right. Please guys, he has proved his facts. Stop this fight already. The op can go with the R9 290 so everybody is happy :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 22, 2014 9:17:00 AM

970 time
m
0
l
!