MSI Introduces its GeForce GTX 770 4 GB Graphics Card
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.

Well that is certainly useful information
Well that is certainly useful information
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 =)