Is it worth upgrading a 770 for GTA 5?

[carling220]

Hi there

I'm downloading GTA 5 now. Currently got a stock 2500k and a 770 lightning. Just been on scan looking at GPU's, im in the UK, 780-TI was well over £300, I saw a 780SC for £278, but the 960's are really cheap at £150-160.

What's the pecking order here. I assume a 960 is better than my 770, and the 780's better than both?

If i overclocked my CPU and bought a 960, would I see a massive difference, or is the gap not so big, between 770 and 960?

 

[aaksheytalwar]

960 isn't an upgrade. You need to go to min 780 ti or 970 or 290.

 

[lehtv]

R9 290 4GB would be the best bang for buck, but if you must buy NVIDIA then GTX 970 is the only upgrade that makes sense. Both give you around 40-50% more performance

 

[2is]

960 isn't an upgrade. You need to go to min 780 ti or 970 or 290.

What he said.

Before you even look at upgrades though, finish downloading the game and play it for a bit. You might find the performance adequate with your current hardware depending on what settings you settle for.

 

[sarfraz khan]

Hi there

I'm downloading GTA 5 now. Currently got a stock 2500k and a 770 lightning. Just been on scan looking at GPU's, im in the UK, 780-TI was well over £300, I saw a 780SC for £278, but the 960's are really cheap at £150-160.

What's the pecking order here. I assume a 960 is better than my 770, and the 780's better than both?

If i overclocked my CPU and bought a 960, would I see a massive difference, or is the gap not so big, between 770 and 960?

I think 770 is fine for running the gta v but gtx 970 is much better

 

[aaksheytalwar]

To play near max you need a 970 or 290 or 780 ti. 770/780 won't do.

 

[Innokentij]

For 1080p 770 GTX will do fine, aslong as u stay away from TXAA and more then x2 MSAA.

 

[Majcric]

Op, I would try the game on the system you have and see if it satisfies. I personally wouldn't upgrade the 770 to anything less than the upcoming 980ti/390, or Titan X performance.

Good luck and I hope the 770 can still offer enough grunt for you at your rez.

 

[Techhog]

The 960 is noticeably slower than the 770, especially the one you have.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hi there

I'm downloading GTA 5 now. Currently got a stock 2500k and a 770 lightning. Just been on scan looking at GPU's, im in the UK, 780-TI was well over £300, I saw a 780SC for £278, but the 960's are really cheap at £150-160.

What's the pecking order here. I assume a 960 is better than my 770, and the 780's better than both?

If i overclocked my CPU and bought a 960, would I see a massive difference, or is the gap not so big, between 770 and 960?

If you can sell your 770 and grab an R9 290/R9 290X for now, that's the best bang for the buck to get about a 25-30% increase in performance.

MSI Gaming R9 290 = 204 pounds (Best bang for the buck upgrade)
XFX R9 290X = 230 pounds

Until R9 300 series and GM200 drop, GTX980 will remain overpriced.

Alternatively, can drop textures and other settings to Normal and use FXAA. IQ shouldn't drop drastically but your performance should improve by a lot!

 

[gamervivek]

Why are techspot's numbers so wonky? Other times they have 980 like 50% faster than 970 and the latter getting pummeled by the 290X in crysis 3 in their Titan X review.

http://www.techspot.com/review/977-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/page7.html

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Because 970 only has 3.5gb vram. It shows at times.

 

[futurefields]

The 970 is a beast @ 1080p though. Seems to hit the same or higher than the 780ti in pretty much every benchmark I've seen. While consuming about 1/2 the power that's pretty impressive.

 

[gamervivek]

Even if that were true, and I don't think it is, it wouldn't explain how their 290X even beats out the 980 in crysis 3.

http://www.techspot.com/review/977-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/page3.html

And the hitman absolution numbers have 290X ~50% faster than 970! Even if it was the rare AMD optimized game, it's still quite a gap.

Also the power consumption numbers show about a 50W difference in system power consumption, so probably even lower for graphics card alone when you factor in that AMD cards push CPUs harder. Most AMD favoring review imo.

 

[futurefields]

The 970 is an absolute beast at 1080p and handily beats any AMD offering.

 

[gamervivek]

My reply was meant to the 3.5GB issue and not you. It should be better at 1080p than 1600p, though I doubt it's doing so 'handily'.
And you don't seem to understand that I am raising questions against techspot's review, instead of showing how the 290X is a better card.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

The thing is tech spot tested at 1440p/4k with 4x MSAA. There AMD cards are indeed a lot faster and 3.5 GB could be an issue there.

 

[RussianSensation]

The 970 is an absolute beast at 1080p and handily beats any AMD offerings.

No, it doesn't. At 1080P, R9 290X reference and reference 970 are basically tied. The review you linked is rather old as drivers and games have moved on from that point and secondly, you are using an after-market 970 against a stock thermal clock throttling reference R9 290/290X cards AT uses.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/20193-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/18#pagehead

Computerbase has 970 beating 290X by 3% at 1080P. That's "handily" to you?

TPU has 970 leading 290X by 2.5% at 1080P in recent reviews.

When we are talking 2.5-3%, that's not the determining factor in GPU selection. Things like game bundles, GPU warranty, price/performance and features start to matter way more. In this case, the lower power usage of a 970, longer warranty than some of AMD's AIB partners such as Sapphire, and TW3 game bundle come into play. However, performance isn't at all a factor here because 290X and 970 are basically identical. Not only that, but you are only looking at FPS and ignoring FCAT where 290X often outperforms the 980, nevermind the 970. So really, performance is absolutely not a factor to pick a 970 over the 290X at 1080P.

Also, right now there is an awesome deal on the Gigabyte 970 for $295 but usually 970 hovers at $310-320 for a good card. Compared to a $240 XFX R9 290, it's not even a competition in terms of price/performance. Nearly 33% more expensive for < 10% increase in performance is a bad deal.

The thing is tech spot tested at 1440p/4k with 4x MSAA. There AMD cards are indeed a lot faster and 3.5 GB could be an issue there.

Ya, that is exactly a big factor that people forget. That 50% advantage in Metro or w/e is at 2560x1600. It's been shown many times that once you crank MSAA at that rez, 970 can fall apart badly. It's clear in this video Jay does where 970 stutters/bombs in Shadow of Mordor. The game is basically unplayable with MSAA on a 970 due to a VRAM bottleneck.

If the OP is gaming at 1080P, this isn't a factor.

 

[tg2708]

770 handles the game pretty well at 1080p. I have most settings either a notch or two down from the highest and I still get over 60 fps while still maintaining good picture quality. So whether the new cards gets 100 fps while I get like 65 it's matters little since the difference in motion clarity is subtle to me. I'm fine for now as I'm not a stickler for always needing to max a game out. Th titan x is my reason to not get a card with less that 6 gb vram.

 

[rchunter]

My gtx 770 has only 2 gb of vram. I plan on holding off getting gta 5 till I can buy a 980ti. Then I will play it. I don't even really want to try now running 1440p and a gtx 770 2gb.

 

[gamervivek]

The thing is tech spot tested at 1440p/4k with 4x MSAA. There AMD cards are indeed a lot faster and 3.5 GB could be an issue there.

As I said, it wouldn't explain why 980 falls behind in crysis 3, perhaps they got it mixed up with some other card, either way it brings their review into question.
And a 24% lead for 290X over 970 at 4k(!), it's not like we're even talking of same category of cards here.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

AMD cards are that much better at higher Rez with MSAA. There is no mix up. It is a known fact. This is why AMD cards age way better as well.

 

[carling220]

Thanks for the replies guys. I downloaded GTA 5 played it with recommended settings. Looks quite good actually, although not breath taking. Most things are on high I think, some very high, a bit of AA. FPS sticks around 60, 55 in cities, drops to 40 if its very busy. Not too bad.

What really frustrates me though, is the texture quality. The texture quality is on Normal, it won't allow me to increase to high or V.high due to a lack of VRAM. Only 2 gig with my 770 lightning.

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/4gb-...dr5-1165mhz-gpu-1664-cores-plus-evga-pcb-back

I've just found that on scan. About £270. From what I read just now, a 970 SC should be a fair bit faster than my 770, and with the 4gb should allow me the high res textures? It's expensive for one game, but i usually upgrade annually anyway! This a good way to go? Would my 2500k need OC also to keep up?

 

[Majcric]

If you upgrade every year then there's probably not much to think about. Go ahead and grab the 970.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Go for it if you buy annually.