Which graphic card is better among these two?

GizmoMKD

Distinguished
May 29, 2014
268
3
18,915


if i was in your place i'd go with gtx 770 no metter vram gtx 780 ti perform better then r9 290x with 3gb vram on watch dogs and others..
 


The GTX 770.

2GB RAM is plenty for modern games. Memory speed is far more important than the amount of memory. Don't be fooled into thinking that 4GB RAM will lead to better performance, because it won't. You only need that much if you start to game across multiple monitors.
 

Shasha23

Honorable
Jun 16, 2013
146
0
10,690


don't speak about things you know nothing about please

anyway the 760 4gig is useless unless you plan to SLI, go with the 770 its a much more powerful card, you will play at ultra most likely high (assuming you game @1080p) but you wont be maxing out games because of the 2gig limit
 


Don't insult people you don't know please. We're all here to help and there's nothing wrong with the advice I gave. I've been building computers for 15 years and work as a Technical and Network Analyst for a large software provider, so I'm well-versed.

Considering that we both said that 4GB is overkill and that the GTX 770 is the better card, I can't even comprehend where the insult came from?!
 

Shasha23

Honorable
Jun 16, 2013
146
0
10,690


it wasn't n insult I was pointing out to you to know what your talking about before you tell someone that

there advice you gave is wrong by the way, a 2gig gpu for 1080p gaming is to weak to max games out, also 4gig is not overkill infact its just about what you need for current gen gaming, don't tell someone 2gig is plenty when it isn't

 


That right there is insulting; you're not just pointing something out, your words are in a condesending tone.



The OP hasn't asked for that, he's asked which GPU is better. On a price/performance basis, it's the GTX 770 unless you play across multiple monitors. I explained that.



Would you care to back up that statement with some benchmarks? There's a benchmark test for Watch Dogs here.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/watch-dogs-pc-performance,review-32960.html

You'll see that an R9 270 is perfectly playable at 1080p with ultra detail and FXAA. That's a 2GB GPU.
 


No, I'm angry because a complete stranger has insulted me. We question each others opinions on this forum, but it's done respectfully. We don't insult the intelligence of others and you'd do well to remember that.
 

Shasha23

Honorable
Jun 16, 2013
146
0
10,690
if you saw what I said as an insult that's your problem because it wasn't, also here in the forum we state factual truths not lies, a 2gig card is not " plenty for modern games" as game that where note worthy that came out this past 12months have been going past 2gig at 1080p easy a 770 is a powerful card but it is still limited by the 2gig and a 760 on its own is to weak to use more than 2gig

I bet what im going to say will sound like an insult and again it isn't, if you've been in this for 15years as you claim, then drop the old school ideology and revaluate your gaming knowledge because 2gig does not cut it anymore for ultra 1080p

p.s ultra is when you have EVERYTHING on max
 

CGurrell

Honorable
Feb 3, 2014
1,098
0
11,460


Ok stop getting butthurt and trying to pass it off as something else...

Ultra is when you have Ultra settings enabled (AA, FOV etc don't contribute to this)

2gb is enough for MOST modern games at 1080p. Using a one-off example like Watch_Dogs isn't going to get you very far.

That being said, if the OP has a budget and can get the 770, I would suggest the r9 280(x) for the extra gb vram as you get similar memory speeds. I would definitely not recommend getting the 4GB 760 as the memory speeds are lower. If you were getting a 760 anyway and could use the extra memory for something like an extra monitor/sli then that's fine. Fact of the matter is, 760 4gb isn't fast enough to run Watch_Dogs on ultra anyway, so the extra memory becomes useless on a single monitor.

And yes if you were still confused, I agree completely with bicycle_repair_man. Insulting people on a forum Shasha is not how to do things and will just get you banned. If you don't like what someone has said then challenge it without being insulting...
 

Shasha23

Honorable
Jun 16, 2013
146
0
10,690
watchdogs, BF4, wolfenstein, Skyrim,hitman absolution, BioShock Infinite and more will come, if you think 2gig is enough good for you bub
 

CGurrell

Honorable
Feb 3, 2014
1,098
0
11,460


When will you figure out that memory speed is more important than memory amount? 2gb GDDR5, with good memory speeds (i.e. GTX 770), is enough to run most of these with Ultra settings. Proof?

Bioshock Infinite http://gyazo.com/a83e5b44137728e477599215142381bb).

BF4 http://gyazo.com/f17bca7f7ae5220ccc8f9891687622af

Wolfenstein TNO http://gyazo.com/1e3e0ba13f86ba1542e1ff8cc4b1a25c

Skyrim http://gyazo.com/2d0703382b55c796e57b6f6b8544ae42

Hitman Absolution http://gyazo.com/dba62208534525d24e75b2fdf0f895e3

Even watchdogs is pretty good (Again 770 in this is comparable to r9 280, probably a bit better, and better than 760) http://gyazo.com/177da9e335071568662200c378c5a100

Do your research next time...

EDIT: Removed skyrim one as wrong res, will update with a new link soon

EDIT2: New skyrim link found
 
OP, apologies for this.

I'll reiterate what CGurrell said and recommend the R9 280X instead. The extra VRAM may not be needed right now, but it's only a matter of time before it is. Sure, you lose out on Physx, but that's a small price to pay in my opinion.
 

CGurrell

Honorable
Feb 3, 2014
1,098
0
11,460


I apologise too, but I think Shasha has been proven wrong anyways.

2gb will be enough for now, but 3gb may become useful in the coming years. If you want nvidia exclusive features then the 770 will do you proud, but the 280x is also a good way to go