Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

MSI Introduces its GeForce GTX 770 4 GB Graphics Card

By - Source: TechPowerUp | B 36 comments

MSI has released a 4 GB version of its GTX 770 Gaming graphics card.

MSI has announced a 4 GB version of its GTX 770 Gaming graphics card, which carries double the memory that the standard GTX 770 Gaming from MSI carries. Beyond the difference in memory, the card is identical to the original.

The card's GPU carries a base clock speed of 1137 MHz and a Boost clock speed of 1189 MHz. The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory runs at an effective speed of 7.0 GHz.

Cooling is taken care of by the TwinFrozr IV cooler, which on this particular card, is painted with a black and red theme. It uses a large aluminum fin stack, a number of heat pipes, and two 100 mm fans for cooling.

Pricing is expected to be around $450, though there is no word as to when the card will be available in stores.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    CaedenV , July 19, 2013 12:31 PM
    "a number of heat pipes"

    Well that is certainly useful information
Other Comments
  • 6 Hide
    SNA3 , July 19, 2013 12:12 PM
    Actually we want the 6G GTX 780 cards :( 
  • 10 Hide
    CaedenV , July 19, 2013 12:31 PM
    "a number of heat pipes"

    Well that is certainly useful information
  • Display all 36 comments.
  • -7 Hide
    nitrium , July 19, 2013 12:40 PM
    With the upcoming next-gen consoles having effectively 8GB of VRAM (although obviously no game will use that much, since the vram is shared with the rest of the system), 4GB should be useful imo to play upcoming console ports. Titan Fall, for example, is slated to use 5GB of VRAM, so even this card won't be able to handle the full-resolution textures of that particular title.
  • -7 Hide
    nitrium , July 19, 2013 12:41 PM
    duplicate
  • -1 Hide
    nikoli707 , July 19, 2013 1:32 PM
    seems the ram in the xbox will be 8gb of gddr3 while the ps4 will be 8gb of gddr5, i can't seem to find an official bus width but i see specs saying 178gb/s on the ps4 while a tahiti based video card runs at well over 260gb/s ram speed. also keep in mind that part of this 8gb of ram in these system will be for the OS only, probably roughly 2gb to 3gb.
  • 2 Hide
    jrstriker12 , July 19, 2013 1:46 PM
    Wonder how much difference 4GB will make vs. the 2GB version and is it's worth the extra cash. Most reviews of the normal 770 don't seem to indicate that ram is a bottleneck.
  • 0 Hide
    SNA3 , July 19, 2013 1:52 PM
    Quote:
    Wonder how much difference 4GB will make vs. the 2GB version and is it's worth the extra cash. Most reviews of the normal 770 don't seem to indicate that ram is a bottleneck.


    4G is for three screens set up . or the coming 4K monitors (using Quad SLI ofc lol)

    2G is enough for 1 monitor running at 1920x1080.
  • 0 Hide
    madogre , July 19, 2013 1:58 PM
    A GTX 770 with 4GB of Vram is a waste, you get no benifit from having more then 2GB due to the 256bit memory bus. The 8GB of Vram in the consoles is probably as usless as tits on a boar, but we will have to wait and see.
    While we are at its a 780 with 6GB will give you the same as with 3GB, truth is the Titan only need 3GB as well 384bit memory bus just cant use the 6GB effectively.
  • -2 Hide
    SNA3 , July 19, 2013 2:12 PM
    Quote:
    A GTX 770 with 4GB of Vram is a waste, you get no benifit from having more then 2GB due to the 256bit memory bus. The 8GB of Vram in the consoles is probably as usless as tits on a boar, but we will have to wait and see.
    While we are at its a 780 with 6GB will give you the same as with 3GB, truth is the Titan only need 3GB as well 384bit memory bus just cant use the 6GB effectively.


    Prove what you just said .
  • 2 Hide
    souleet , July 19, 2013 2:30 PM
    MSI have been getting Great review on their video cards. I haven't really seen Asus or EVGA review for the 700 series.
  • 2 Hide
    souleet , July 19, 2013 2:30 PM
    MSI have been getting Great review on their video cards. I haven't really seen Asus or EVGA review for the 700 series.
  • -1 Hide
    madogre , July 19, 2013 2:55 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    A GTX 770 with 4GB of Vram is a waste, you get no benifit from having more then 2GB due to the 256bit memory bus. The 8GB of Vram in the consoles is probably as usless as tits on a boar, but we will have to wait and see.
    While we are at its a 780 with 6GB will give you the same as with 3GB, truth is the Titan only need 3GB as well 384bit memory bus just cant use the 6GB effectively.


    Prove what you just said .


    Sigh, can you not use Google your self?
    #1 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/43109-evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-4gb/?page=13
    The Good
    Cool, near-silent, and quick
    Completely non-standard design begs to be pushed hard
    Healthy factory-based GPU overclock
    Can be made into a beast with over-voltage and better cooling
    Remains power-efficient

    The Bad
    No out-of-the-box memory overclocking
    Usefulness of 4GB memory buffer is questionable

    #2 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html
    Final words and conclusion
    The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

    #3 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/displays/57849-asus-pq321q-4k-gaming-tried-tested/?page=7
    Having larger framebuffers remains more of a marketing tool than a real-world benefit for even enthusiast gamers... there simply won't be many harder cases than rendering to a 4K screen at ultra-quality settings and with a semi-pointless 4x MSAA invoked. Should you really want to have pristine edges in games and aren't happy with the default render from an 8.3MP screen, we'll doubtless see other, more efficient techniques such as FXAA take over.

  • 2 Hide
    nitrium , July 19, 2013 3:34 PM
    Quote:

    The Bad
    No out-of-the-box memory overclocking
    Usefulness of 4GB memory buffer is questionable

    #2 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html
    Final words and conclusion
    The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

    #3 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/displays/57849-asus-pq321q-4k-gaming-tried-tested/?page=7
    Having larger framebuffers remains more of a marketing tool than a real-world benefit for even enthusiast gamers... there simply won't be many harder cases than rendering to a 4K screen at ultra-quality settings and with a semi-pointless 4x MSAA invoked. Should you really want to have pristine edges in games and aren't happy with the default render from an 8.3MP screen, we'll doubtless see other, more efficient techniques such as FXAA take over.

    Are they equally sure it will be of NO USE DOWN THE ROAD? That imo is what having 4GB VRAM is about. NOT for current games, obviously, but for future next-gen titles (i.e. over the next few years). Massive amounts of textures specifically will surely effectively utilize more ram. The issue here is that there are currently ZERO titles on which to test this. That will change - you would argue that the 5GB of VRAM that Titan Fall is reportedly going to use won't actually work properly because the memory bandwidth will be too low. Can you prove that?

  • 0 Hide
    asukafan2001 , July 19, 2013 4:50 PM
    Quote:
    With the upcoming next-gen consoles having effectively 8GB of VRAM (although obviously no game will use that much, since the vram is shared with the rest of the system), 4GB should be useful imo to play upcoming console ports. Titan Fall, for example, is slated to use 5GB of VRAM, so even this card won't be able to handle the full-resolution textures of that particular title.


    According to the developer, it technically uses more then 5 GB when you factor in the cloud computing that Microsoft is doing with the xbox one.
  • -2 Hide
    madogre , July 19, 2013 6:15 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:

    The Bad
    No out-of-the-box memory overclocking
    Usefulness of 4GB memory buffer is questionable

    #2 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html
    Final words and conclusion
    The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

    #3 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/displays/57849-asus-pq321q-4k-gaming-tried-tested/?page=7
    Having larger framebuffers remains more of a marketing tool than a real-world benefit for even enthusiast gamers... there simply won't be many harder cases than rendering to a 4K screen at ultra-quality settings and with a semi-pointless 4x MSAA invoked. Should you really want to have pristine edges in games and aren't happy with the default render from an 8.3MP screen, we'll doubtless see other, more efficient techniques such as FXAA take over.

    Are they equally sure it will be of NO USE DOWN THE ROAD? That imo is what having 4GB VRAM is about. NOT for current games, obviously, but for future next-gen titles (i.e. over the next few years). Massive amounts of textures specifically will surely effectively utilize more ram. The issue here is that there are currently ZERO titles on which to test this. That will change - you would argue that the 5GB of VRAM that Titan Fall is reportedly going to use won't actually work properly because the memory bandwidth will be too low. Can you prove that?


    Yes I am sure, when that happens the GPU horse power of the current card will not be able to keep up with it. There is a reason reference cards stick with memory amounts close to the memory bus size. with GDDR 5 you are able to run 256bus with 2GB of Vram, back in the old days you saw 256bit bus with 512 because it was GDDR2 like in the Geforce 5900 cards, once they moved up to GDDR3 you say 256bit bus with a massive 1GB of Vram, and now we have GDDR5 and it has the speed to work awesome with 2GB of GDDR5 with a 256bit bus, but once you move up to 3GB of GDDR5 you really need the 384bit bus to utilize it like with the GTX780 and Titan.

    The Titan was not intended for gamers really, and had AMD not dropped the ball with the 7970 letting them use the mid range GK104 chip as the 680, we would have seen reference cards with 3GB instead of 6GB like the workstation counter parts its made from.

  • 1 Hide
    SNA3 , July 19, 2013 6:19 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    A GTX 770 with 4GB of Vram is a waste, you get no benifit from having more then 2GB due to the 256bit memory bus. The 8GB of Vram in the consoles is probably as usless as tits on a boar, but we will have to wait and see.
    While we are at its a 780 with 6GB will give you the same as with 3GB, truth is the Titan only need 3GB as well 384bit memory bus just cant use the 6GB effectively.


    Prove what you just said .


    Sigh, can you not use Google your self?
    #1 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/43109-evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-4gb/?page=13
    The Good
    Cool, near-silent, and quick
    Completely non-standard design begs to be pushed hard
    Healthy factory-based GPU overclock
    Can be made into a beast with over-voltage and better cooling
    Remains power-efficient

    The Bad
    No out-of-the-box memory overclocking
    Usefulness of 4GB memory buffer is questionable

    #2 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html
    Final words and conclusion
    The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

    #3 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/displays/57849-asus-pq321q-4k-gaming-tried-tested/?page=7
    Having larger framebuffers remains more of a marketing tool than a real-world benefit for even enthusiast gamers... there simply won't be many harder cases than rendering to a 4K screen at ultra-quality settings and with a semi-pointless 4x MSAA invoked. Should you really want to have pristine edges in games and aren't happy with the default render from an 8.3MP screen, we'll doubtless see other, more efficient techniques such as FXAA take over.



    who said you will get benefet today ?

    this is about the future . if the game buffer and data woesnt need more than 2 GB ofc you wont see a difference. but when they start to need it you will see that . and you can still use 3 monitors are higher resolution . like 1600P monitors. or 1400P monitors.

    yes most of the people wont need more than 2G of GDDR5 , BUT there are people who pay $10,000 to $20,000 machines .. and they will make use of it.
  • -1 Hide
    yyk71200 , July 19, 2013 6:30 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    A GTX 770 with 4GB of Vram is a waste, you get no benifit from having more then 2GB due to the 256bit memory bus. The 8GB of Vram in the consoles is probably as usless as tits on a boar, but we will have to wait and see.
    While we are at its a 780 with 6GB will give you the same as with 3GB, truth is the Titan only need 3GB as well 384bit memory bus just cant use the 6GB effectively.


    Prove what you just said .


    Sigh, can you not use Google your self?
    #1 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/43109-evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-4gb/?page=13
    The Good
    Cool, near-silent, and quick
    Completely non-standard design begs to be pushed hard
    Healthy factory-based GPU overclock
    Can be made into a beast with over-voltage and better cooling
    Remains power-efficient

    The Bad
    No out-of-the-box memory overclocking
    Usefulness of 4GB memory buffer is questionable

    #2 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html
    Final words and conclusion
    The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

    #3 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/displays/57849-asus-pq321q-4k-gaming-tried-tested/?page=7
    Having larger framebuffers remains more of a marketing tool than a real-world benefit for even enthusiast gamers... there simply won't be many harder cases than rendering to a 4K screen at ultra-quality settings and with a semi-pointless 4x MSAA invoked. Should you really want to have pristine edges in games and aren't happy with the default render from an 8.3MP screen, we'll doubtless see other, more efficient techniques such as FXAA take over.



    who said you will get benefet today ?

    this is about the future . if the game buffer and data woesnt need more than 2 GB ofc you wont see a difference. but when they start to need it you will see that . and you can still use 3 monitors are higher resolution . like 1600P monitors. or 1400P monitors.

    yes most of the people wont need more than 2G of GDDR5 , BUT there are people who pay $10,000 to $20,000 machines .. and they will make use of it.


    When you will need more VRAM, you will need a stronger card anyway.
  • 0 Hide
    SNA3 , July 19, 2013 7:02 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    A GTX 770 with 4GB of Vram is a waste, you get no benifit from having more then 2GB due to the 256bit memory bus. The 8GB of Vram in the consoles is probably as usless as tits on a boar, but we will have to wait and see.
    While we are at its a 780 with 6GB will give you the same as with 3GB, truth is the Titan only need 3GB as well 384bit memory bus just cant use the 6GB effectively.


    Prove what you just said .


    Sigh, can you not use Google your self?
    #1 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/43109-evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-4gb/?page=13
    The Good
    Cool, near-silent, and quick
    Completely non-standard design begs to be pushed hard
    Healthy factory-based GPU overclock
    Can be made into a beast with over-voltage and better cooling
    Remains power-efficient

    The Bad
    No out-of-the-box memory overclocking
    Usefulness of 4GB memory buffer is questionable

    #2 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html
    Final words and conclusion
    The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

    #3 http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/displays/57849-asus-pq321q-4k-gaming-tried-tested/?page=7
    Having larger framebuffers remains more of a marketing tool than a real-world benefit for even enthusiast gamers... there simply won't be many harder cases than rendering to a 4K screen at ultra-quality settings and with a semi-pointless 4x MSAA invoked. Should you really want to have pristine edges in games and aren't happy with the default render from an 8.3MP screen, we'll doubtless see other, more efficient techniques such as FXAA take over.



    who said you will get benefet today ?

    this is about the future . if the game buffer and data woesnt need more than 2 GB ofc you wont see a difference. but when they start to need it you will see that . and you can still use 3 monitors are higher resolution . like 1600P monitors. or 1400P monitors.

    yes most of the people wont need more than 2G of GDDR5 , BUT there are people who pay $10,000 to $20,000 machines .. and they will make use of it.


    When you will need more VRAM, you will need a stronger card anyway.


    lol dont worry 4 in GTX 770 4GB in SLI will be enough for that :) 

    this stuff is for the rich =)
  • 2 Hide
    cupholder , July 19, 2013 7:46 PM
    And the tech illiterate, apparently.
  • -1 Hide
    eddieroolz , July 20, 2013 12:25 AM
    If I remember correctly, the 770 is a reworked 680 so the card itself is likely suffering from lack of bandwidth at the PCIe slot...though the extra buffer will massively help dual and triple-monitor users.
Display more comments