Hey guys how is the 770 going to be like?

S[H]ady;1039919314 said:
GTX470 came out on April 7th, 2010 - By my count that's 3 years and not quite 2 months.
GTX570 launched on Dec 7th 2010 - 2.5 years ago- This was roughtly 15 % more performance
GTX670 launched May 10, 2012 - 1 year ago - roughly 20% faster than 570 - A GTX680 is roughly 10% faster than that.
Latest rumors are that the GTX770 will be 10% faster than the GTX680, making it roughly 20% faster than the previous generation GTX670.

Yes, it will cost more, but newsflash! They upped the price on the last cycle, not this one.
they did the same to the tier below. GTX560ti's were quite a bit cheaper than GTX660ti's.
259 vs 299

Things get more expensive as time goes on. It's the nature of inflation. If you haven't noticed, cars, homes, food, clothing, all of these things have gotten more expensive in the last couple years.
Click to expand...
yes 2.5 years not 3.5 so you are right. for a long time we were getting way more performance at the same price brackets so I guess I got used to that.

and AGAIN that 20-25% over the 670 is mainly from higher clocks. oc both the 770 and 670 and will be looking at around 10-15% even if the 770 ocs a little better.
 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
yes 2.5 years not 3.5 so you are right. for a long time we were getting way more performance at the same price brackets so I guess I got used to that.

and AGAIN that 20-25% over the 670 is mainly from higher clocks. oc both the 770 and 670 and will be looking at around 10-15% even if the 770 ocs a little better.
Click to expand...

Still not seeing that as a problem.
This isn't the first time that a refresh is only just a higher clock speed and refinements to the core. It's most likely not going to be the last either.

If you already have a 670 and 20% more performance doesn't appearl to you, then keep it. This refresh isn't for you.
 
S[H]ady;1039919397 said:
Still not seeing that as a problem.
This isn't the first time that a refresh is only just a higher clock speed and refinements to the core. It's most likely not going to be the last either.

If you already have a 670 and 20% more performance doesn't appearl to you, then keep it. This refresh isn't for you.
Click to expand...

im just gonna get a 2nd 670 instead. i have a 100$ amazon gift card. hopefully the 770s drop the prices a little bit. if i can get a 2nd 670 for 250$ ill be happy. plus thats a bigger bump up in performance.
 
Inflation has been very low in the past couple of years. We're actually in a deflationary economy; that's why the Fed set interest rates to 0% and has been doing multiple rounds of "quantitative easing", which essentially prints money, to counter deflation. If they didn't do that, we'd probably be in a depression right now, like Greece and Spain. Cumulative inflation from 2010 to 2013 amounts to about 7%. So $300 in 2010 inflated to $320 today.

Nvidia charges more for videocards because they aren't a charity, they're in business to make money, and they charge what the market will bear.
 
dremic said:
im just gonna get a 2nd 670 instead. i have a 100$ amazon gift card. hopefully the 770s drop the prices a little bit. if i can get a 2nd 670 for 250$ ill be happy. plus thats a bigger bump up in performance.
Click to expand...

I have an MSI GTX 670 PE/OC that I'll be selling soon for around that price.
 
cannondale06 said:
usually? no. go look back through recent history. the 670 was just 100 cheaper than the 680 but thats because the 670 was not crippled all that much and clock for clock there is only 4-5% difference. 780 now is based off a pricey chip that also cant be priced to low to make the Titan look silly. 770 is nothing more than a 680 where Nvidia has already cleaned up and prices are finally dropping a little. there is NO way the 770 will be 549.
Click to expand...

i was pretty close. there going for $500
 
400 = instant sale 450 = have to Think about it 500 = what a joke.
 
S[H]ady;1039919397 said:
If you already have a 670 and 20% more performance doesn't appearl to you, then keep it. This refresh isn't for you.
Click to expand...

lol... I have a 470 GTX and I doubt I will upgrade this generation if the planned prices are right. I was really looking forward to upgrading my GPU too, not because I need to upgrade, but because I wanted to. Just not at the speculated price points, performance seems to be "okay" just not enough to justify the added costs. :eek:
 
Meh.. I was contemplating the 780 at first by the specs and price didn't meet my liking, and then read about the price and specs for the 770.. A big NOPE to both of them. I put my Sapphire 6990 on Ebay and just order a second MSI 680 Twin Frozr... I'll skip the 700 series entirely, and probably 800..
 
Last edited:
I didn't expect any surprises with the GTX 770 either given the facts, but having primarily used a GTX 680 GC for the past year I can say there's a noticeable difference going to a GTX 770 GC when I tested earlier this week. It wasn't a whole lot faster, but the noise and heat were significantly lower, even dual fan card vs. dual fan card. Considering it's $399, I think the 770 GC is a hell of a value.
 
I just went in for 2 of these and am upgrading my Seasonic X-series 650 to an 850. Sure is easy to blow a grand just sitting at work with access to a browser! Coming from a single GTX 580. Need to run my 2560 x 1440 27" monitor so this setup should do the trick. If anyone cares, they will be on a Z77 chipset, i7 2700k, and 8GB RAM. Looking forward to some SLI action! :D
 
jcollett said:
I just went in for 2 of these and am upgrading my Seasonic X-series 650 to an 850. Sure is easy to blow a grand just sitting at work with access to a browser! Coming from a single GTX 580. Need to run my 2560 x 1440 27" monitor so this setup should do the trick. If anyone cares, they will be on a Z77 chipset, i7 2700k, and 8GB RAM. Looking forward to some SLI action! :D
Click to expand...
no way would I have spent 840 bucks for gpus with only 2gb of vram to play games at 2560.
 
cannondale06 said:
no way would I have spent 840 bucks for gpus with only 2gb of vram to play games at 2560.
Click to expand...

Care to show us which games and settings will you play at 1600p that the 2GB in those 770s are undermining your gaming experience. :confused:

This " 2Gb is too little" has been decimated 1y ago when 4GB 680s where reviewed and compared against 2GB 680s. And don't starting with " 4GB will be better for future games" . I have been listing to that kind of BS since the days of "1Gb DDR2 cards are more future proof than 256Mb DDR3 cards" :rolleyes:

The issue with the 770 is the cooler- the sexy Titan cooler showed in reviews is absent from market offers, that go open air in custom coolers. I want a blower with a true vapor chamber that i can sli without using water cooling, is that asking too much? :(
 
geok1ng said:
Care to show us which games and settings will you play at 1600p that the 2GB in those 770s are undermining your gaming experience. :confused:

This " 2Gb is too little" has been decimated 1y ago when 4GB 680s where reviewed and compared against 2GB 680s. And don't starting with " 4GB will be better for future games" . I have been listing to that kind of BS since the days of "1Gb DDR2 cards are more future proof than 256Mb DDR3 cards" :rolleyes:

The issue with the 770 is the cooler- the sexy Titan cooler showed in reviews is absent from market offers, that go open air in custom coolers. I want a blower with a true vapor chamber that i can sli without using water cooling, is that asking too much? :(
Click to expand...
so in other words you dont want an answer. I am sure the people that bought 8800gts 320mb over the 640mb when 320mb was borderline were real happy have to upgrade much sooner. same goes for the 4870 512mb vs 4870 1gb as those with the 1gb model can still play most games today. either of those setups wold have been doubly stupid if going for crossfire or SLI. its a fact that 2gb of vram is pushing it at 2560 for the settings that 770 sli is capable of running.
 
Last edited:
I got the gts 8800 512mb for my last build. Long time ago kindof but i dont remember that to be any cheaoer than the current 770 prices
 
Pretty sure Metro LL is particularly memory intensive on ultra settings, just as an example. IIRC it's one of the few games where there's a big performance difference between 780 and Titan at 1440p, and I presume this is from memory bottleneck since it's such a close race on practically everything other benchmark at similar settings. And that's 3GB vs. 6GB.

Still, there's a very reasonable argument to be made for the fact that changing just a few settings will cut memory usage in half for most games. If you're fine with Ultra settings + FXAA and 2X MSAA instead of Ultra + 8X MSAA, you'll cut probably 60% off your vram usage and be fine with 2GB on practically any current game. If you're on the fence about 2GB vs. 4GB, I'd say good look at some images comparing FXAA to MSAA and decide whether you're willing to pay extra to get the image quality on the right.

On my office PC I have a 5760x1080 desktop and just a single GTX 680 2GB, but I just use FXAA with no MSAA and most games run just fine with that one compromise. Just depends on what you personally demand on your graphics quality to consider your gaming experience to be satisfactory.
 
Galaxy said:
Pretty sure Metro LL is particularly memory intensive on ultra settings, just as an example. IIRC it's one of the few games where there's a big performance difference between 780 and Titan at 1440p, and I presume this is from memory bottleneck since it's such a close race on practically everything other benchmark at similar settings. And that's 3GB vs. 6GB.

Still, there's a very reasonable argument to be made for the fact that changing just a few settings will cut memory usage in half for most games. If you're fine with Ultra settings + FXAA and 2X MSAA instead of Ultra + 8X MSAA, you'll cut probably 60% off your vram usage and be fine with 2GB on practically any current game. If you're on the fence about 2GB vs. 4GB, I'd say good look at some images comparing FXAA to MSAA and decide whether you're willing to pay extra to get the image quality on the right.

On my office PC I have a 5760x1080 desktop and just a single GTX 680 2GB, but I just use FXAA with no MSAA and most games run just fine with that one compromise. Just depends on what you personally demand on your graphics quality to consider your gaming experience to be satisfactory.
Click to expand...
actually Metro LL is one of the least memory intensive games. overall though at 2560, it just makes since to go 4gb over 2gb if running 770 sli.
 
i want benchmarks and proof of this 2GB mambo-jambo, that AFAIK started in an AT comment on the 780 review that was later repeated by an AT reviewer of the 770.

In-game memory usage is a pretty poor indicator of how much memory is too little, since most good game engines use available memory dynamically, much like modern OSs. So even if one sees 90%+ memory usage inside a game, that does not mean, at all, that more memory would make the game run faster. More often than not real life test show the opposite scenario.

Metro? Lets go back a few months and search the countless 4GB 680s reviews and see if this claim hold water. After all the 770 is nothing more than a faster memory 680, so we can safely assume that 4GB 770 are to 2GB 770 qhat 4GB 680 qhere to 2GB 680 back then:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,18.html
ZERO ADVANTAGE 4GB VS 2GB

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6096/evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-review/5
OC'ed $GB 680 less than 3 frames "faster"than stock 2GB 680. AT comments: "The GTX 680C picks up 7% here at 2560, which is decent but it’s less than what the factory overclock can provide when the GPU can fully stretch its legs."

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/43109-evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-4gb/?page=8
In this review actual in-game memory usage went above 2GB, but there is no performance gap compared to the 2GB card, perfect example of dinamic memory allocation by the game engine. :
Of more interest is the 2,204MB framebuffer usage when running the EVGA card, suggesting that the game, set to Ultra quality, is stifled by the standard GTX 680's 2GB. We ran the game on both GTX 680s directly after one another and didn't feel the extra smoothness implied by the results of the 4GB-totin' card.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_680_4gb,6.html
This is the most in-depth review of a 4Gb card that i have ever seen, the reviewer went the distance and tested at 3x1600p to finally grab something that can be called a "4GB better than 2Gb effect", but only at this insane resolution ( that only VEGA plays at) in multicard setups:

For those gaming on a single monitor the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 4GB has nothing to offer in the way of extra performance over a 2GB card. Having initially tested at 2560x1600 we found absolutely no difference in performance and this was also the case at the triple-monitor resolution of 5040x1050 which features almost 30% more pixels.
It is not until you go three times greater than 2560x1600 that you start to see the advantages of having the larger frame buffer. Still even at 7680x1600 not all games will show the 4GB GTX 680 to be faster, as other bottlenecks appear first.

The games that responded the best to the extra frame buffer included Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor Warfighter, while increases were also seen in DiRT 3 and Alan Wake. From our results it is clear anyone looking to game at the extreme triple-monitor resolution of 7680x1600 will require not one but rather two GeForce GTX 680 4GB graphics cards. Still when spending over $3000 on monitors it’s not hard to imagine dishing out over $1100 on GPUs.

That said, we have to wonder why anyone would bother with the GeForce GTX 680 4GB for extreme resolutions when the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition was constantly faster at both 5040x1050 and 7680x1600. In fact at 7680x1600 the 7970 GHz Edition was on average 20% faster than the GeForce GTX 680 4GB in the half dozen games that we tested with.

This is the same conclusion that we drew when comparing the previous generation dual-GPU graphics cards on triple-monitor setups, as we found the Radeon HD 6990 to be superior to the GeForce GTX 590.

Even if we were to assume that 2-way SLI would scale 100% over a single GeForce GTX 680 4GB configuration, we would still be faced with less than 60fps in all of the games that we tested with at 7680x1600. This makes the 20% performance advantage of the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition all the more important.

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 4GB costs 17% more than the 2GB version, which equates to an $80 price premium. For 99.9% of gamers this added cost is not going to deliver any additional performance, making 4GB GTX 680 graphics cards a niche product. Still, for those that have their sights set on a 4GB GTX 680, this Gigabyte version is by far the biggest and most impressive we have come across and providing you are happy to sacrifice an extra expansion slot, there is no better GTX 680 available right now.

For those wondering what kind of advantage a 4Gb 680 had over a 2Gb gaming in 3x30", it was 16fps vs 4fps in battlefield 3, and 19fps vs 5 fps in Medal of Honor. For 3x30"gamers the answer is quite clear: go Titan or go home.
 
geok1ng said:
i want benchmarks and proof of this 2GB mambo-jambo, that AFAIK started in an AT comment on the 780 review that was later repeated by an AT reviewer of the 770.

In-game memory usage is a pretty poor indicator of how much memory is too little, since most good game engines use available memory dynamically, much like modern OSs. So even if one sees 90%+ memory usage inside a game, that does not mean, at all, that more memory would make the game run faster. More often than not real life test show the opposite scenario.

Metro? Lets go back a few months and search the countless 4GB 680s reviews and see if this claim hold water. After all the 770 is nothing more than a faster memory 680, so we can safely assume that 4GB 770 are to 2GB 770 qhat 4GB 680 qhere to 2GB 680 back then:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,18.html
ZERO ADVANTAGE 4GB VS 2GB

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6096/evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-review/5
OC'ed $GB 680 less than 3 frames "faster"than stock 2GB 680. AT comments: "The GTX 680C picks up 7% here at 2560, which is decent but it’s less than what the factory overclock can provide when the GPU can fully stretch its legs."

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/43109-evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-4gb/?page=8
In this review actual in-game memory usage went above 2GB, but there is no performance gap compared to the 2GB card, perfect example of dinamic memory allocation by the game engine. :
Of more interest is the 2,204MB framebuffer usage when running the EVGA card, suggesting that the game, set to Ultra quality, is stifled by the standard GTX 680's 2GB. We ran the game on both GTX 680s directly after one another and didn't feel the extra smoothness implied by the results of the 4GB-totin' card.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_680_4gb,6.html
This is the most in-depth review of a 4Gb card that i have ever seen, the reviewer went the distance and tested at 3x1600p to finally grab something that can be called a "4GB better than 2Gb effect", but only at this insane resolution ( that only VEGA plays at) in multicard setups:

For those gaming on a single monitor the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 4GB has nothing to offer in the way of extra performance over a 2GB card. Having initially tested at 2560x1600 we found absolutely no difference in performance and this was also the case at the triple-monitor resolution of 5040x1050 which features almost 30% more pixels.
It is not until you go three times greater than 2560x1600 that you start to see the advantages of having the larger frame buffer. Still even at 7680x1600 not all games will show the 4GB GTX 680 to be faster, as other bottlenecks appear first.

The games that responded the best to the extra frame buffer included Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor Warfighter, while increases were also seen in DiRT 3 and Alan Wake. From our results it is clear anyone looking to game at the extreme triple-monitor resolution of 7680x1600 will require not one but rather two GeForce GTX 680 4GB graphics cards. Still when spending over $3000 on monitors it’s not hard to imagine dishing out over $1100 on GPUs.

That said, we have to wonder why anyone would bother with the GeForce GTX 680 4GB for extreme resolutions when the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition was constantly faster at both 5040x1050 and 7680x1600. In fact at 7680x1600 the 7970 GHz Edition was on average 20% faster than the GeForce GTX 680 4GB in the half dozen games that we tested with.

This is the same conclusion that we drew when comparing the previous generation dual-GPU graphics cards on triple-monitor setups, as we found the Radeon HD 6990 to be superior to the GeForce GTX 590.

Even if we were to assume that 2-way SLI would scale 100% over a single GeForce GTX 680 4GB configuration, we would still be faced with less than 60fps in all of the games that we tested with at 7680x1600. This makes the 20% performance advantage of the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition all the more important.

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 4GB costs 17% more than the 2GB version, which equates to an $80 price premium. For 99.9% of gamers this added cost is not going to deliver any additional performance, making 4GB GTX 680 graphics cards a niche product. Still, for those that have their sights set on a 4GB GTX 680, this Gigabyte version is by far the biggest and most impressive we have come across and providing you are happy to sacrifice an extra expansion slot, there is no better GTX 680 available right now.

For those wondering what kind of advantage a 4Gb 680 had over a 2Gb gaming in 3x30", it was 16fps vs 4fps in battlefield 3, and 19fps vs 5 fps in Medal of Honor. For 3x30"gamers the answer is quite clear: go Titan or go home.
Click to expand...

Please.... facts and actual research on these forums? BLASPHEMER! HERETIC! :p Yeah, though, VRAM "requirements" are seriously overexaggerated and an urban legend at this point amongst your typical so-called "gamer/computer enthusiast"... who in reality seems to know little about what he claims to be an expert on.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Please.... facts and actual research on these forums? BLASPHEMER! HERETIC! :p Yeah, though, VRAM "requirements" are seriously overexaggerated and an urban legend at this point amongst your typical so-called "gamer/computer enthusiast"... who in reality seems to know little about what he claims to be an expert on.
Click to expand...

And that's why i won't even bother posting in the thread about next gen consoles, with pretty much the same legend. :p
 
I am not to keen on spending $400 on a 2GB graphics card in this day and age. Had the 770 had 3GB I would have bought it straight away, now I am more and more leaning towards the 7970 for my new build. CPU will be Ivy Bridge (i7-3770K). I am very disapointed with Nvidia this time around I have to say.

I'm upgrading from a GTX 560 Ti and a Q9650.
 
On a side note, I just got my free 770 backplate from EVGA. They shipped it insanely fast, first class USPS.

Not sure if I'll bother putting it on. Does it do anything besides making the card look better? Will it drop temps by even a single degree?
 
schizo said:
On a side note, I just got my free 770 backplate from EVGA. They shipped it insanely fast, first class USPS.

Not sure if I'll bother putting it on. Does it do anything besides making the card look better? Will it drop temps by even a single degree?
Click to expand...

its just for looks
 
That's what I figured. It does have heat transfer material on the back, but that's just for the VRAM. My guess is that overall temps would go up. In the drawer it goes, then, I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top