NVidia 760 Now or wait for the 860?

David_Schroth said:
I don't see how those numbers could be real, especially with the claim that 4X AA is enabled on all of those games at 2560x1600. Either way, looking at the FPS deltas, even if taken truthfully, basically shows the cards to be a tie. There's not enough extra performance to boost gameplay settings on any game in that lineup, therefore, there's not much to get excited about here unless the card is cheaper than a 7950 Boost edition.

I'm actually surprised I'm still subscribed to this thread... perhaps its time for me to check out...
Click to expand...

Shit, I totally missed the claim of 4x AA. Those figures have GOT to be total BS.
 
"Memory Size: 2GB / 4GB GDDR5"

I wonder if the 4g version would be worth getting? What's a fair price for that? What benefits would come with 4g of memory or is it not really worth it?

GeForce GTX 760 specs:

GPU: GK104-225
CUDA Cores: 1152
TMUs: 96
ROPs: 32
Base Clock: 980 MHz
Boost Clock: 1033 MHz
Memory Clock: 1502 MHz
Effective Memory Clock: 6008 MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 192 GB/s
Memory Size: 2GB / 4GB GDDR5
Memory Bus: 256-bit
Power Connectors: 2x 6-pin
TDP: 170W

GeForce-GTX-760-vs-HD-7950.png


- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Performance Preview
 
^ I don't think there's a need to keep posting the same "results" screenshot and "review" link.

Anyway, 4GB may be a benefit in a few games where you would be using heavy MSAA settings and higher resolutions. Drawback with this level of GPU is you would likely need multiple GPUs to attain playable framerates. For 1080p with FXAA or even lower MSAA settings, the 2GB should be fine.
 
Jose, there's a great article done by good 'ol HardOCP about 4GB GTX670s. Their conclusion was that you need more power to make the extra memory worth it. Essentially unless you are running tri-sli, there's not enough power in those cards to make it usefull. You also rarely ever need more than 2GB unless running 3 screens, or a 1440p screen.

You will be just fine with a 2GB version, ESPECIALLY if you run a single 1080p monitor.

If the card launches on Tuesday like i was reading yesterday, you'll see plenty of reviews pop up I'm sure.
 
S[H]ady;1039987658 said:
Jose, there's a great article done by good 'ol HardOCP about 4GB GTX670s. Their conclusion was that you need more power to make the extra memory worth it. Essentially unless you are running tri-sli, there's not enough power in those cards to make it usefull. You also rarely ever need more than 2GB unless running 3 screens, or a 1440p screen.

You will be just fine with a 2GB version, ESPECIALLY if you run a single 1080p monitor.

If the card launches on Tuesday like i was reading yesterday, you'll see plenty of reviews pop up I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert but, your comment makes sense to me. Thanks for that.

Is this that review you were talking about?: ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DirectCU II 4GB GPU Review
 
S[H]ady;1039987658 said:
Jose, there's a great article done by good 'ol HardOCP about 4GB GTX670s. Their conclusion was that you need more power to make the extra memory worth it. Essentially unless you are running tri-sli, there's not enough power in those cards to make it usefull. You also rarely ever need more than 2GB unless running 3 screens, or a 1440p screen.

You will be just fine with a 2GB version, ESPECIALLY if you run a single 1080p monitor.

If the card launches on Tuesday like i was reading yesterday, you'll see plenty of reviews pop up I'm sure.
Click to expand...

That's in current games, though, where the only way to shoot past 2GB of VRAM usage is to run stupidly-high resolutions and tons of FSAA, which requires a very fast GPU and tons of memory bandwidth.

If games start using higher-resolution textures, I think 4GB will quickly become useful. High-res textures don't demand a lot of power, just tons of memory. With the XBO and PS4 both having 8GB of memory, I think we will see VRAM usage increase over the coming years. Those consoles have relatively limited CPU and GPU power, so I'm guessing using high-res textures to "fake" detail will become very popular, which will carry over to PC ports as well.

Still, that's probably ~2 years away so unless you upgrade very infrequently, you can safely stick with a 2GB card this generation, IMO.
 
JimmiG said:
That's in current games, though, where the only way to shoot past 2GB of VRAM usage is to run stupidly-high resolutions and tons of FSAA, which requires a very fast GPU and tons of memory bandwidth.

If games start using higher-resolution textures, I think 4GB will quickly become useful. High-res textures don't demand a lot of power, just tons of memory. With the XBO and PS4 both having 8GB of memory, I think we will see VRAM usage increase over the coming years. Those consoles have relatively limited CPU and GPU power, so I'm guessing using high-res textures to "fake" detail will become very popular, which will carry over to PC ports as well.

Still, that's probably ~2 years away so unless you upgrade very infrequently, you can safely stick with a 2GB card this generation, IMO.
Click to expand...

Considering nVidia isn't letting card makers put more than 3GB on the 780s, I really don't think that will be the case. They wouldn't gimp the card like that if they thought there was a good chance of needing that memory soon.

I really don't see 4GB ever being necessary on this generation. By the time they need the ram, they'll also be demanding more power.
 
S[H]ady;1039988815 said:
I really don't see 4GB ever being necessary on this generation. By the time they need the ram, they'll also be demanding more power.
Click to expand...
Although I agree with the general principle, I think the timing window is an issue.

Certainly, they're selling 2GB cards now because we don't really need more at this very moment, and, in the odd cases that we might have needed more, specific driver instructions probably account for those keeping usage capped. But new games will likely come out in the next year, and it wouldn't be surprising to have them use up as much VRAM as they can.

But, since nVidia is going to release a new card a year-ish from now, it serves them well to release a card that's easily obsoleted so that people will want to, or even have to, buy their new cards. Or, at the least, just good enough over existing stock to sell now while staying with or above the competition. When new cards come out, even the driver smoothing support for >2GB VRAM situations might go away.

What I'm saying is obviously still just conjecture, but I bet it certainly wouldn't surprise anyone if nVidia branded their next-gen cards as the best way to play (**insert 2014 AAA title here**) because it also has more VRAM, and current release patterns are possibly structured to accommodate that.
 
It's odd to me that Nvidia only put 3g of memory on the 780 but they put 4g of memory on the 760 - why on earth would they do that? Why would they add an extra gigg of memory to the 760 over the 780?

I heard that Crysis 3 uses 1.9g of memory. I wouldn't know since my HIS 4870 can't even play it.

Will DDR6 come out with Maxwell?
 
^ marketing. $650 for essentially a 3GB Titan, or make you pay $1000+ for the 6GB big dog.

Give it time and maybe we'll see 780 models with more than 3GB VRAM.
 
Humm, so 2g is fine for now but, in a year or two that 4g of memory could end up being a huge benefit.

My pickle is that I'll have to use the 760, if I get it, to put it in with my next new system - i7 Broadwell or maybe Skylake. I really wanted Maxwell for the new generation architecture and energy efficiency - that's why I was considering waiting 'til next year but, my 4870 is at the end of its life, at least for new games. The 760 will have to last me 4 years.

When I tried to get the free beta Crysis 3 from Steam a pop up tells me that my GPU can't play it. Will I see a noticeable difference between the 4870 and 760 GPU's at 1080p or am I just about to waste my money?
 
JoseJones said:
It's odd to me that Nvidia only put 3g of memory on the 780 but they put 4g of memory on the 760 - why on earth would they do that? Why would they add an extra gigg of memory to the 760 over the 780?
Click to expand...
It'll come standard with 2GB; 4GB is the expanded memory version for an extra charge, just like how they have 4GB 670/680 and 3GB 660/660Ti.

JoseJones said:
Humm, so 2g is fine for now but, in a year or two that 4g of memory could end up being a huge benefit.

My pickle is that I'll have to use the 760, if I get it, to put it in with my next new system - i7 Broadwell or maybe Skylake. I really wanted Maxwell for the new generation architecture and energy efficiency - that's why I was considering waiting 'til next year but, my 4870 is at the end of its life, at least for new games. The 760 will have to last me 4 years.
Click to expand...
First, it won't be a huge benefit; that's what everyone here is more or less telling you when they say you'll run out of GPU power sooner than VRAM.

That 4GB will only come into play if you're in the odd situation where you have 3x the power of a 760/770 (because we know that these GPUs can't use 4GB on their own or even in 2-way SLI, as evidenced by the [H] review) and you can turn on all the visual effects that will eat up VRAM but also require processing power to push at a decent framerate.

Second, I would seriously advise you to consider upgrading more often if you're going to be asking questions like this. I hope that doesn't sound condescending, because I'm certainly of a similar temperament -- I like to consider how long I'll be using it when I buy and vigorously research before I make my decision -- but I've found that upgrading when you want to or need to is the best way to save yourself some grief.

You'll also not spend much more money in the process -- hell, just think about how much time you spent doing research and looking up prices. =D Buy a good-powered card now, enjoy it, take whatever loss you'll take from reselling the card a year or two from now (small price when you consider the time you spent playing instead of fretting), and have fun with the fact that you're running with new gear and new tech every odd year.

Also, even the buying the expanded memory version seems to only marginally affect your resale price later on -- people were paying more or less the same thing for my 560Ti 2GB over the regular 1GB version. When it comes time to sell, it's already faded tech and only people that need to match their cards are specifically in the market for your fringe card (because they're in shorter production and harder to find).

P.S. Crysis rapes every single GPU, you'll never escape that. Just turn down settings or go multi-card.
 
If you are wanting 4 years out of a 760, then it may be worth it to go with a 4GB now then add another one when you transition to Broadwell or Skylake (dependent on GPU availability, of course).
 
JoseJones said:
Humm, so 2g is fine for now but, in a year or two that 4g of memory could end up being a huge benefit.

My pickle is that I'll have to use the 760, if I get it, to put it in with my next new system - i7 Broadwell or maybe Skylake. I really wanted Maxwell for the new generation architecture and energy efficiency - that's why I was considering waiting 'til next year but, my 4870 is at the end of its life, at least for new games. The 760 will have to last me 4 years.

When I tried to get the free beta Crysis 3 from Steam a pop up tells me that my GPU can't play it. Will I see a noticeable difference between the 4870 and 760 GPU's at 1080p or am I just about to waste my money?
Click to expand...

Oh no trust me there should be a massive difference from a 4870 to a 760 or even a 7950. IT just depends how long you can wait because maxwell will be out in 2014, but that is still pretty far from now. I was actually planning on getting either the 760 or the 770, but I think I am leaning towards the 770 then wait for maxwell.
 
gtx760 for 4 years? 4 years is a bit too long to hope for a card to still be relevant for demanding games. it has not quite even been 3 years since the gtx460 came out and try playing demanding newer games at 1080 on that card. now imagine trying to play games a year from now on that gtx460. 4 years is a loooong time.
 
cannondale06 said:
gtx760 for 4 years? 4 years is a bit too long to hope for a card to still be relevant for demanding games. it has not quite even been 3 years since the gtx460 came out and try playing demanding newer games at 1080 on that card. now imagine trying to play games a year from now on that gtx460. 4 years is a loooong time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The best GPUs of 2008 are now long obsolete, and while you may futureproof somewhat for a couple of years, 4 years is stretching things a bit IMHO. Heck, what was the best card of 2008? 8800 ultra? We have cards that blow it away now with a fraction of the power consumption, and 2013 games look *substantially* better than 2008 games as a whole. When I think of 2008, I think of WoW: Wotlk, Mass Effect 1, and now we have Tomb Raider, crysis 3, etc. Graphics and GPUs are so much better now.

Graphical quality will still become incrementally better with each passing year - if you look at the xbox 360, it took some time for developers to become completely comfortable with it and eke the most out of it. So even with the lowest common denominator console ports, they became higher quality every year - just compare something like Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 3. They were both designed for the 360, ported to PC, yet ME3 looks quite a bit better.

My point is, obviously PC games will get higher in terms of quality with each passing year - and even the console ports will as well. You can future proof perhaps for two years, but 4 years is a bit much. I don't believe a 760 will last that long.
 
cannondale06 said:
gtx760 for 4 years? 4 years is a bit too long to hope for a card to still be relevant for demanding games. it has not quite even been 3 years since the gtx460 came out and try playing demanding newer games at 1080 on that card. now imagine trying to play games a year from now on that gtx460. 4 years is a loooong time.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's just totally a money thing. Like the HIS 4870 1g, I may end up stuck with a 760 for 4 years whether I like it or not, unless I win the lotto. So much of this stuff is just entirely wayyy too expensive. I don't know how you guys can afford to buy new stuff every year or every other year.
 
JoseJones said:
I agree, it's just totally a money thing. Like the HIS 4870 1g, I may end up stuck with a 760 for 4 years whether I like it or not, unless I win the lotto. So much of this stuff is just entirely wayyy too expensive. I don't know how you guys can afford to buy new stuff every year or every other year.
Click to expand...

Dump cable.

That's a new video card every year right there.
 
limitedaccess said:
You should consider shorter upgrade cycles at a lower price point instead.
Click to expand...

760 is (or at least better be) a lower price point for an adequate gaming GPU. I'm still on a 570 and if surprise bills keep cropping up the way they are, then I'll be stuck with it until the 800 series has long been out. :/

The way I see it is that JoseJones could spend $150-250 on a much less powerful GPU, but then there will be instant buyer's remorse and it'll be a GPU that will need to be replaced quickly anyway. Or, he could spend what we're hoping is $200-275 on a 760 and it would last much longer than that $150-250 card. It would be cheaper in the long run to spend a little bit more now.
 
There are of course market considerations (such as the timing of product releases) but I am speaking more in terms of a general mindset of buying what is affordable in shorter upgrade cycles as opposed to buying a more expensive "future proof" card to stretch out longer upgrade cycles.

The reason is performance/price tends to decreases as you go up and performance requirements/visual impact (in terms of graphics settings) also tends to increase as you go up in settings. This means ultimately you are at a value loss chasing higher immediate settings and will suffer over the longer life time you are choosing to go with the product.

There is of course some personal preference involving here as well since some people might greatly prefer immediate settings at the expense of having to live with a poorer experience during the later years, or not even being able to run the game in this case.

For example personally speaking I would have rather chose a scenario of buying a 7850/7870 and upgrading ~2 generations from now as opposed to buying a GTX 670 and having to wait ~4 generations to upgrade.
 
DejaWiz said:
760 is (or at least better be) a lower price point for an adequate gaming GPU. I'm still on a 570 and if surprise bills keep cropping up the way they are, then I'll be stuck with it until the 800 series has long been out. :/

The way I see it is that JoseJones could spend $150-250 on a much less powerful GPU, but then there will be instant buyer's remorse and it'll be a GPU that will need to be replaced quickly anyway. Or, he could spend what we're hoping is $200-275 on a 760 and it would last much longer than that $150-250 card. It would be cheaper in the long run to spend a little bit more now.
Click to expand...

What it comes down to is "generational leap" vs evolutionary improvements. The difference between a $200 and $400 card of the same generation is not nearly as significant as the difference between generations.

For example, a few years down the line, it doesn't really matter whether you bought a GTX 260 or a GTX 280 back in the day. The GTX 280 might have given you 90 FPS instead of 70 FPS with games that were brand new back in 2008. This might translate to 20 FPS instead of 15 FPS in games from 2013. So regardless of which card you bought, it will be time to upgrade anyway. There will be very few cases where the extra 10-20% improvement from a more expensive card will mean you can keep it for a significantly longer time.

I kept my GTX 460 1GB until just a few weeks ago. I doubt I would have been able to keep a GTX 470 for much longer. According to Anandtech Bench, the GTX 460 gets 25 FPS in Metro 2033, the GTX 470 gets 30 FPS. The GTX 670 gets 54.5 FPS. That's a "generational" (or two) leap.
 
I think we will rather see 4/8GB GDDR5 parts with Sony pushing 8 gigs of unified ram
 
I've gone from GTX 260 -> GTX 460 -> AMD 6850 -> AMD 7850 -> GTX 660 in the last few years and never spent more than $50 for the upgrade after selling my old cards. For that whole stretch of time, I've had good mid range cards and been able to play every game I wanted with high settings.

And this was all cheaper than if I bought a GTX 280 to begin with in an attempt to "future proof" my GPU.
 
JimmiG said:
What it comes down to is "generational leap" vs evolutionary improvements. The difference between a $200 and $400 card of the same generation is not nearly as significant as the difference between generations.

For example, a few years down the line, it doesn't really matter whether you bought a GTX 260 or a GTX 280 back in the day. The GTX 280 might have given you 90 FPS instead of 70 FPS with games that were brand new back in 2008. This might translate to 20 FPS instead of 15 FPS in games from 2013. So regardless of which card you bought, it will be time to upgrade anyway. There will be very few cases where the extra 10-20% improvement from a more expensive card will mean you can keep it for a significantly longer time.

I kept my GTX 460 1GB until just a few weeks ago. I doubt I would have been able to keep a GTX 470 for much longer. According to Anandtech Bench, the GTX 460 gets 25 FPS in Metro 2033, the GTX 470 gets 30 FPS. The GTX 670 gets 54.5 FPS. That's a "generational" (or two) leap.
Click to expand...

I already know all of this and 100% agree, because I never once stated the OP should get anything more than the 760. I was responding to the comment that stated he should spend less and get a less powerful GPU, which I do not agree with. The 760, if priced in the $200-250 range, would be the perfect choice. Now getting 4 years out of it is going to be a stretch, as with just about any GPU in the current generation.
 
ocellaris said:
I've gone from GTX 260 -> GTX 460 -> AMD 6850 -> AMD 7850 -> GTX 660 in the last few years and never spent more than $50 for the upgrade after selling my old cards. For that whole stretch of time, I've had good mid range cards and been able to play every game I wanted with high settings.

And this was all cheaper than if I bought a GTX 280 to begin with in an attempt to "future proof" my GPU.
Click to expand...
lol those are some tiny upgrades. you have barely doubled your performance from the original card from 5 years ago.
 
dremic said:
supposedly the 760 comes out tomorrow eh?
Click to expand...

I hope so. VERY anxiously waiting on the [H] review for the 760 and 760ti models. Can any of the [H] reviewers/editors confirm a release date at all?
 
cannondale06 said:
lol those are some tiny upgrades. you have barely doubled your performance from the original card from 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Some of the upgrades were for features (6850 for Eyefinity) and not outright performance. I went from a 7850 to a GTX 660 because I dislike AMD card having the refresh "ripple" on one of the screens using Eyefinity. And the AMD drivers just suck anyway :p
 
ocellaris said:
Some of the upgrades were for features (6850 for Eyefinity) and not outright performance. I went from a 7850 to a GTX 660 because I dislike AMD card having the refresh "ripple" on one of the screens using Eyefinity. And the AMD drivers just suck anyway :p
Click to expand...

amd drivers dont suck.

and that ripple is called tearing and all cards do that if you dont have vsync on.
 
dremic said:
1. amd drivers dont suck.

2. and that ripple is called tearing and all cards do that if you dont have vsync on.
Click to expand...

1. We're all not allowed to have our own opinions, huh?

2. I was thinking the same thing. Need more info.
 
DejaWiz said:
1. We're all not allowed to have our own opinions, huh?

2. I was thinking the same thing. Need more info.
Click to expand...

its not an opinion. its not even a subjective discussion. its proven amd drivers have greatly improved. its a shitty insult that continues to get used with almost zero backing to it. nvidia has better sli support compared to crossfire thats about it. everything else can be chopped up to developers favoring nvidia in most games.
 
dremic said:
amd drivers dont suck.

and that ripple is called tearing and all cards do that if you dont have vsync on.
Click to expand...

Mine did it with or without vsync, with 6850 and 7850 cards, in two different computers, with multiple DisplayPort -> DVI adapters. :(. The monitor on the adapter always had the tearing.

Also in both systems, my Eyefinity groups would randomly disappear and then not re-enable until I played whack a mile in the CCC. Then running Crossfire + Eyefinity was an exercise in pain for most of the games I was playing.

I put a substantial number of hours troubleshooting, reinstalling windows, swapping monitors, trying beta drivers, and reporting issues to AMD.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I was looking at the 7970 that Newegg has for $349 AR, but I hate breaking the $300 line when buying video cards since I only game at 1920x1080.

I realize it is early, but is the Vapor-X 7970 worth $100 more over the 760?
 
I wish i knew that.

I can get 760 for 1050 PLN or 770 for 1600 PLN and i can't decide if 20% fps more is worth 50% price increase especially when those 50% could be half of another 760 for SLI and that would be good deal faster than 770 (guru 3d has it above stock Titan)
 
$250 as an introductory MSRP blows me away...I really thought it was going to be $50 more. Very awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top