
Battlefield 4
Replacing its predecessor in our bench suite, Battlefield 4 also tends to be limited by the graphics subsystem. CPU performance plays a more prominent role at lower resolutions and lower detail levels, though. For those of you done with this game's single-player campaign, big multi-player maps tend to be quite processor-bound as well. In the real world, you'll get even more benefit from a faster CPU than these tests indicate.
The GeForce GTX 770 benefits from the faster platform and only suffers a loss to the Radeon R9 290 at triple monitor resolutions. Even so, it doesn't lose by much.

Arma 3
Arma3 is known to become exponentially demanding on the graphics hardware as resolution is raised past 1080p. This is a scenario where the Radeon R9 290 shows a great advantage, but the GeForce GTX 770 fares very well on a single monitor.
- Changing Focus For A Look At Processor Performance
- CPU, Motherboard And Cooler
- Graphics Card, Power Supply And Case
- Memory, Hard Drives And Optical Storage
- Building And Overclocking
- How We Tested
- Results: Synthetics
- Results: Media Transcoding
- Results: Rendering And Productivity
- Results: Adobe Creative Cloud
- Results: Compression Tools
- Results: Battlefield 4 And Arma 3
- Results: Grid 2 And Far Cry 3
- Power And Temperature
- Q3 2014 Mainstream Enthusiast PC Under $1300 Verdict



[EDIT by cleeve]
They are not reversed. Check out the accompanying writeup to help make sense of it.
[/EDIT]
While I'd agree on the cheaper case, the 970 wasn't an option since they hadn't been released when they were buying parts for this quarter's SBM.
From Page 3 of the article: "The GeForce GTX 970 launched last week wasn't available (or even public information) back when we ordered the pieces for this build. So, I needed something cheaper than the Radeon R9 290 that wouldn't sacrifice gaming performance. Under $300, the best option was Nvidia's GeForce GTX 770."
Obviously, today the 970 would be a much better choice, but that option didn't exist when this build was purchased.
Good job. There is always that guy who does not read the article when it explains why the brand new card was not used, because it was not an option at the time of the review.
So congrats on being that guy this time. It only took 3 posts to get there.
on the last page:
may be you meant the Q2 enthusiast system. imo, yea, the q3 build doesn't seem as attractive as the q2 one. i think that one could add the ssd from this build and still be the better pc.
i wonder if you guys would build an fx8350/8320 pc as an alternative build at this price range for the ongoing overclocking theme.
I'd like to know more about the thickness / flexibility of the ASRock mobo. Otherwise, I don't think I have any niggles over performance-related parts.
I've never had any problems with Asrock and I'm on my second Asrock board.
Can I haz your 3GB 770 plz ?
Don't think the Q2 rig was properly setup if you are losing to the 770 in every test...
in page 5, GTX 770 overclocking used AMD OverDrive utility?
is there some kind of mistake or what?