Which GPU is better? Which would you take?

[Silverforce11]

R290s have come down in price in the USA recently, so its clearly the best bang for buck around that price point. Completely wasteful to spend that much on either 280X or 770 when the R290 is only a little more.

 

[Majcric]

At 1440p, with a single card it will choke before you run out of Vram. My vote is to the GTX 770.

 

[3DVagabond]

I thought we had figured out over a year ago what GPU was better between the GK104 and Tahiti? This is the same comparison as the GTX 680 vs. the 7970. Nothing has changed.

For Gaming:
1, The higher the res the advantage increases for Tahiti.
2, If you are going to O/C Tahiti has the advantage.
3, GK104 is more energy efficient.

For Compute (If it matters?):
Tahiti destroys GK104 in most tasks.

In the end they are close enough though that game preference matters more than anything else. You are going to see a few percentage points difference overall, but you can see some large differences in particular games.

 

[2is]

Buy whichever card has your preferred ecosystem. At 1440p they are basically equal from a performance perspective. 3gb vs 2gb is overblown in this class card at 1440p.

Yes, overblown if you're playing counter strike.

 

[96Firebird]

It's like nobody even reads the thread...

 

[toyota]

Yes, overblown if you're playing counter strike.

show me some games that actually "need" 2gb at settings that people would consider playable on a 770 or 280. most people want to maintain 60 fps so neither of those cards will be needing over 2gb at settings that will be used to do that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

show me some games that actually "need" 2gb at settings that people would consider playable on a 770 or 280. most people want to maintain 60 fps so neither of those cards will be needing over 2gb at settings that will be used to do that.

Read post 7. It isn't 60FPS, but to me that frame rate could very well be playable, depending on the type of game. The 2GB card is forcing you to compromise if you did find 35FPS average to be playable.

Keep in mind, that isn't a new game, either. Games are only going to get more intense, especially with the new consoles have only launched fairly recently.

I guess maybe we should look at this differently, the GPU's perform fairly close to one another. What is the advantage that 2GB has over 3GB of vram on these cards, especially at 1440P? None? Now what would you say the advantage 3GB has over 2GB?

 

[Termie]

Read post 7. It isn't 60FPS, but to me that frame rate could very well be playable, depending on the type of game. The 2GB card is forcing you to compromise if you did find 35FPS average to be playable.

Keep in mind, that isn't a new game, either. Games are only going to get more intense, especially with the new consoles have only launched fairly recently.

I guess maybe we should look at this differently, the GPU's perform fairly close to one another. What is the advantage that 2GB has over 3GB of vram on these cards, especially at 1440P? None? Now what would you say the advantage 3GB has over 2GB?

Just so people don't have to click, I'll mention the game that I found to fail at 1440p due to VRAM: Hitman Absolution.

Are there others like it? Not that I've found yet, but BF4 is a close call, as it will easily fill the entire 2GB of VRAM even at 1080p ultra, so you're probably getting reduced draw distances in that game at anything above 1080p high.

 

[Lepton87]

I would get 280X but you should look at benchmarks of the games that you play, some games heavily favor one architecture over the other.

 

[SymphonyX7]

R9 280X @ 1440p. But personally, I'd go for one of the custom cooled R9 290 cards instead, which have 4 GB RAM. Thread starter did say that price isn't a point of contention. The performance difference of the 290 against both 770 and 280X is ridiculous. The 780 gets smacked by the 290 as well especially if you take price into consideration.

Just squeeze a little more for something like the Sapphire Tri-X R9 290. It's cool and runs extremely quiet as well.

 

[2is]

show me some games that actually "need" 2gb at settings that people would consider playable on a 770 or 280. most people want to maintain 60 fps so neither of those cards will be needing over 2gb at settings that will be used to do that.

All I "need" to pick a 3GB card over a 2GB card that are in the same price range is games that perform better with 3GB vs 2GB at my resolution, in the OP's case, 1440p.

I don't "need" the game to be unplayable with a 2GB card to make that decision.

 

[toyota]

All I "need" to pick a 3GB card over a 2GB card that are in the same price range is games that perform better with 3GB vs 2GB at my resolution, in the OP's case, 1440p.

I don't "need" the game to be unplayable with a 2GB card to make that decision.

so was what I said really that confusing for you? I said the games themselves to need that much VRAM. By that I mean there are games that will use the VRAM if you have it but they don't necessarily need it. in fact I don't know of a single game that needs over 2 GB at playable settings for a 770. those level of cards will run out of gpu power at 2560 before 2 GB is the limitation.

 

[2is]

so was what I said really that confusing for you? I said the games themselves to need that much VRAM. By that I mean there are games that will use the VRAM if you have it but they don't necessarily need it. in fact I don't know of a single game that needs over 2 GB at playable settings for a 770. those level of cards will run out of gpu power at 2560 before 2 GB is the limitation.

Apparently, it was what I said that was confusing to you. If you feel the need to reply and say the same thing over again, you didn't understand it. You keep using the term "playable" I'm not concerned with merely playable, I want better. If I can get better performance from a 3GB card than a 2GB card and they cost roughly the same, I'm going with 3GB. (unless the 2GB card has a feature set that would be more beneficial to me than the extra VRAM)

Skyrim with mods eats VRAM for breakfast, BF4 with resolution scale turned much higher than 100% does as well, even at 1080p... Both examples will hit VRAM induced performance hiccups with 2GB before the GPU itself becomes an issue.

Again, if you feel the need to reply, you just don't get it, and this is about as elementary as I can make it.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Was faced with the same choice as the Op at one point, but for 1080p.Went 770 but I think if I had a 1440p panel I would have went 280x no doubt about it if the price was the same or less.

770 certainly is a 1080p or lower card, no situations yet that have ate the whole 2gb but BF4 does come close but I can tell you I wish I had more gpu power.:awe:

 

[amenx]

Its funny how nobody can provide actual benches comparing performance of the same card vs a higher vram version of same card at 1440p/1600 res (ie, 770 2gb vs 4gb, 780 3gb vs 6gb, etc). You cant cross-compare different architectures (ie 770 vs 280x, etc) and attribute performance difference solely due to vram. Also not accurate to use gk104 vs gk110 (770 vs 780) to look at performance delta of different resolutions and say vram is a big factor. I've only seen one set of benches where 2 vs 4gb does indeed make a difference..... but at 7860x1600:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_680_4gb,4.html

There may be other benches/charts that show otherwise (@2560x1440/1600), just havent seen any. Actual vram usage charts are useless as they dont show performance impact nor how/if the vram is actually being used or just cached. Unless someone can actually prove 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 6gb performs better at 1440/1600 (with published data) , then all talk in this regard is pure conjecture.

 

[24601]

Don't know why this thread is still going. My post was a /thread.

There's no interesting discussions to be had while R9 290 is ~300 USD.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk..."R9+280x"&_nkw=R9+290+-"R9+280x"&_sacat=27386

Think it's too loud?

Under-clock it 200 Mhz and it will be ~ the same performance of 280x.

 

[blackened23]

Its funny how nobody can provide actual benches comparing performance of the same card vs a higher vram version of same card at 1440p/1600 res (ie, 770 2gb vs 4gb, 780 3gb vs 6gb, etc). You cant cross-compare different architectures (ie 770 vs 280x, etc) and attribute performance difference solely due to vram. Also not accurate to use gk104 vs gk110 (770 vs 780) to look at performance delta of different resolutions and say vram is a big factor. I've only seen one set of benches where 2 vs 4gb does indeed make a difference..... but at 7860x1600:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_680_4gb,4.html

There may be other benches/charts that show otherwise (@2560x1440/1600), just havent seen any. Actual vram usage charts are useless as they dont show performance impact nor how/if the vram is actually being used or just cached. Unless someone can actually prove 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 6gb performs better at 1440/1600 (with published data) , then all talk in this regard is pure conjecture.

This. The talk of 3GB being needed for 1440p, frankly, cracks me up because i'm fairly sure I gamed extensively with 680s at 1600p for what seemed like ages. 2GB was fine. And is fine because the next generation consoles are a joke in terms of power.

Last I checked, the 770 was available with 4GB anyway. And the card linked by OP was 380$? Seems to me you can get a 4GB 770 for that price can't you?

There are tons of websites that have done 2 vs 4 GB benchmarks in tons of games even in surround. HardOCP. Legitreviews. I could bother to link these reviews of 2 vs 4GB if I wanted to waste time, but then an entire thread page would be filled with cries of foul. Biased website. Blah blah blah. In fact, HardOCP benched 2 vs 4GB at 5760x1080. Performance difference? Take a guess. ZERO. Same stuff as always. Anyway, of all of these reviews of 2 vs 4 GB cardS? Performance difference? Absolutely none. Now some AMD resellers may try to sell you on the AMD card, but really, you don't need more than 2GB. The only cases in which more than 2GB makes sense is if you're using heavy surround resolutions or using tons of SSAA. Of course if you're using tons of mods and tons of SSAA you'll run out of GPU horsepower before VRAM is even an issue.

More VRAM is not about performance. It is about more anti aliasing. More SSAA. We're in a situation where the next generation consoles are so pathetic, that AA is using more VRAM than actual game assets are. Is that sad? Yes, yes it is. What more VRAM is good for is: More modding. More SSAA. Now once you get into 4k, more VRAM makes sense. Surround 1440p times 3? Yes, get 4 or 6GB. And you have that option of getting 4GB with the 770 or 6GB with the 780s. Or you can do the AMD thing. But you don't need more than 2GB for 1440p unless you want to go crazy with SSAA or modding, period.

Then AGAIN, by the flip side of the coin, the 280X you linked is the same price as a 4GB 770 anyway. Just buy what you want to buy, I would suggest ignoring the questionable advice from some folks (with questionable intent at that) and hit up google. Don't listen to me or anyone else that will try to muddy the waters. Go to google. Google 2 vs 4GB 680 benchmarks. Google reviews of the 770 and 280X. Use your brain for yourself. I'm confident that once you eliminate the forum noise, you can make a good buying decision - both cards are good performers, but the VRAM really is a non issue; I say this after having gamed extensively at 1600p. You should be thinking more along the lines of software and features for your purchase. Like I said. Eliminate the forum noise and find these reviews through google. Find reputable review websites. There you will find more info than you could ask for without forum noise.

 

[blastingcap]

Don't know why this thread is still going. My post was a /thread.

There's no interesting discussions to be had while R9 290 is ~300 USD.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk..."R9+280x"&_nkw=R9+290+-"R9+280x"&_sacat=27386

Think it's too loud?

Under-clock it 200 Mhz and it will be ~ the same performance of 280x.

Try reading the thread instead of getting all self-congratulatory. OP is buying a prebuilt giving him a choice between 770 and 280X at the same price. If it's like most bundle deals, he can't simply tell them he wants no video card at all. This is not about some guy building his own rig, where he'd have more flexibility.

 

[24601]

Try reading the thread instead of getting all self-congratulatory. OP is buying a prebuilt giving him a choice between 770 and 280X at the same price. If it's like most bundle deals, he can't simply tell them he wants no video card at all. This is not about some guy building his own rig, where he'd have more flexibility.

I read the OP, his response post #1 was nonsensical, so I took it as just a lie.

In the case that what he said in his response post #1 is true there is zero choice.

770 is clearly better by any measure.

Not to mention the DCUII 280x is going to overheat the VRMs anyways, making it throttle by VRM temp if he can stay non-CPU limited, which will also be a challenge @ 1080p with AMD/ATi's massive overhead in DX9, DX10, DX11.

A prebuilt should only ever be an option if it is more than marginally less expensive than optimal self-custom built unit.

A prebuilt that doesn't have a 3570k/4670k is automatically overpriced, and will massively CPU limit either card @ 1080p, especially the AMD/ATi card.

 

[Mondozei]

The 770. It's a close one, but it is the better card when you consider factors outside the very even performance of both cards(like power efficiency and software stuff like Nvidia's shadowplay etc).

 

[hjalti8]

Many of you are forgetting that high res textures eat up a lot of vram, yet have almost no impact on performance(if you have enough vram).

I've encountered 2 games that require more than 2gb vram @1440p
Skyrim with high res textures
aand total war: Rome2

I'd be surprised if we wont see any open world games in the near future, which will sport some jaw dropping high res textures and will require a lot more than 2gb vram. Witcher 3 maybe?

 

[Majcric]

Just so people don't have to click, I'll mention the game that I found to fail at 1440p due to VRAM: Hitman Absolution.

Are there others like it? Not that I've found yet, but BF4 is a close call, as it will easily fill the entire 2GB of VRAM even at 1080p ultra, so you're probably getting reduced draw distances in that game at anything above 1080p high.

What part of Hitman: Absolution did you notice a Vram wall, I would like to test this on my 680 at 1440p. Looking for an excuse to upgrade.

 

[Termie]

What part of Hitman: Absolution did you notice a Vram wall, I would like to test this on my 680 at 1440p. Looking for an excuse to upgrade.

Actually, that was with the built-in benchmark. You can test for a VRAM bottleneck by noting the delta between avg and min at 1080p and then again at 1440p. The mins will drops down under 10fps at 1440p despite averages in the 30s.

 

[toyota]

What part of Hitman: Absolution did you notice a Vram wall, I would like to test this on my 680 at 1440p. Looking for an excuse to upgrade.

I just tested it at 2560x1440 and a 770 will run out of gpu power before 2gb matters. my 780 was dropping into the mid 30s while using just 4x MSAA and hitting a max of 2042 mb of vram. so again it goes back to what I said about the gpu itself will be a limitation before the vram will. a highly modded skyrim is the only viable exception I have seen.

for modern gaming on higher settings at 2560x1440, I would go 780 or 290 or not even bother. thats if the rest of his pc is up to snuff.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Toyota has a good point, my 2gb gtx770 tanks pretty hard in BF4 on my 26'' t.v @1366x768 with 200% scale resolution.I hit nearly 1800mb usage which is the most vram any of my games use and its sitting well below 60fps average lol.