R9 280X vs GTX 770

[jty0yt]

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 😛

 

[Mac266]

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.

 

[RevolutionHD]

That EVGA one is too pricy for its performance. Add 20 bucks and get an R9 290 (as good as GTX-780)

 

[oxiide]

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.

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."

 

[MeteorsRaining]

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-tested/3/), 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-770-120gb-ssd-290.html), 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.

 

[oxiide]

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-tested/3/), 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-770-120gb-ssd-290.html), 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.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

^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:

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-tested/3/

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....

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.

 

[RevolutionHD]

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

 

[Jay Lavistria]

970 time