CTX 770 or GTX 780

Prox7

Prox7

n00b
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
53
I currently have an AMD HD6970 and thinking of upgrading. I have in mind either the GTX 770 or the GTX780. The GTX 770 would be much cheaper for me but I'm not planing on upgrading again for 2 more years. Should I get the 770, put the extra money and get the 780 or just wait??
 
What games do you currently play and at what resolution on your display?
 
Prox7 said:
I currently have an AMD HD6970 and thinking of upgrading. I have in mind either the GTX 770 or the GTX780. The GTX 770 would be much cheaper for me but I'm not planing on upgrading again for 2 more years. Should I get the 770, put the extra money and get the 780 or just wait??
Click to expand...

Are you just upgrading to upgrade, or are you being limited by your current gaming experience? Go ahead and tell us your games, what resolution you're playing at, and the rest of your system specs so that we can help you out.
 
I would wait until next week and see what happens with Nvidia's next release and whether or not AMD actually announces anything at E3.

In general I wouldn't want to upgrade now for "future proofing" type reasons but only if you want something to run better at this time. Although in your case if you plan to upgrade in 2 years even with a GTX 780 that is a relatively fast turn around anyways.
 
The 780 is 20% faster, but costs 60% more. Doesn't seem like a very good value to me.
 
If you are gaming at 1920x1200 or below, then no need to consider the 780.
 
Just wait....when amd released their next batch the prices will fall. You seem to be a patient upgrader (still on 6970), so just see what happens when amd releases theirs.
 
I would like to game at naive resolution 2560*1440. I currently play sc2 and bioshock infinite. I also forgot to mention I have $250 in amazon gift cards
 
Then you want the 780. The 384-bit memory + 3GB is a must for high-resolution gaming, especially if you want this to last 2 years. Also, the beefy cut-down Titan is very capable compared to the 770 (which is a SLIGHTLY overclocked 680).
 
go for the 780 at 2560x1440. 770 will still get the job done but with the 780 you can run much better settings and keep the framerates up.

and out of the box at 2560, a 780 will be over 30% faster and will scale better too. an oced non reference 780 will easily be 45-50% faster than an oced 770.
 
Prox7 said:
I would like to game at naive resolution 2560*1440. I currently play sc2 and bioshock infinite. I also forgot to mention I have $250 in amazon gift cards
Click to expand...

idk what these people are talking about you dont need a 780 to game at 1440p at all.


especially if youre only playing sc2 and bioshock.

HOWEVER. if I had 250$ gift card I would definitely swoop on a 780.
 
dremic said:
idk what these people are talking about you dont need a 780 to game at 1440p at all.


especially if youre only playing sc2 and bioshock.

HOWEVER. if I had 250$ gift card I would definitely swoop on a 780.
Click to expand...
you have a 670 for 2560x1600 which is much worse than me having a 660ti at 1920x1080. I have to turn down at least a couple settings and AA in all the demanding games to even come close to getting 60 fps. so I know you have to reduce even more settings. a 780 at 2560 is really no faster than a 660ti at 1920 so I say yes the 780 is the way to go if you can afford it.
 
dremic said:
idk what these people are talking about you dont need a 780 to game at 1440p at all.
Click to expand...

He currently has a 6970. This too can play games at 1440p.

I assumed from his post that he was making an investment for more than just Bioshock Infinite. I expect more punishing titles to bring the 6970 to it's knees, especially over the intended 2 year span of the upgrade.

You are right though: if he is not a serious gamer, he should not be upgrading. Bioshock will run at medium settings with his current card.
 
bleagh said:
If you are gaming at 1920x1200 or below, then no need to consider the 780.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Some people are content with 50-80fps but i find 120fps feels much much smoother and is very noticable on a 120hz monitor.
 
Darksword said:
The 780 is 20% faster, but costs 60% more. Doesn't seem like a very good value to me.
Click to expand...

This OC'd or not? Value proposition may change since it doesn't appear the 770 will OC much more than stock but the 780 has a lot more headroom.
 
Rakky said:
I disagree. Some people are content with 50-80fps but i find 120fps feels much much smoother and is very noticable on a 120hz monitor.
Click to expand...

According to Tom's charts, the 780 is only about 8% faster than the 770 at 1920x1080 (182.80 for 780, 168.73 for the 770). Now while this does also include somewhat lower setting than the extreme tests, it does show that the 780 just isn't hugely better than the 770 at lessor resolutions.

Now go up to 2560x1440 with extreme settings, and the 780 beats the 770 by about 23% (175.99 for the 780, 142.92 for the 770). Still not that huge, but maybe actually noticeable.

The 780 simply is NOT near as much better that the 770 as you suggest at ANY resolution, and certainly not at 1920x1080.
 
Eh, the 770 is not 8% slower than the 780. In tpu's chart, they show it as being 15% slower at stock clocks.

I used to own 2 different 680's that were oc'ed at much higher clocks than a stock 770 (1241 boost and 1802 on the memory for both), and they did not deliver nowhere near the performance I'm getting with this 780 at stock.

If I was the OP, I would just wait to see what AMD has cooking. It's rumored that they will announce the 8970, sometime this week on e3.
 
Yep patience, competition from AMD is likely to drive down the price of the 780.
 
It'll drive down the prices, and that's a great reason to wait, but AMD doesn't have new silicon to compete with GF110. If you want the performance now, there isn't a better buy than the GTX780 (though we wish there were, GTX260's went for $200 in the same relative performance envelope...).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
It'll drive down the prices, and that's a great reason to wait, but AMD doesn't have new silicon to compete with GF110. If you want the performance now, there isn't a better buy than the GTX780 (though we wish there were, GTX260's went for $200 in the same relative performance envelope...).
Click to expand...
AMD has been beating GF110 since it launched the 7970. :p
 
tonyftw said:
Eh, the 770 is not 8% slower than the 780. In tpu's chart, they show it as being 15% slower at stock clocks.
Click to expand...

15% slower at what resolution?

Like I said in my post, Tom's is showing the 780 as only about 8% faster at 1920x1080, but about 23% faster at 2560x1440. Average those together and you are a little over 15%.

So depending on the game, resolution, and settings, the 780 may only be a little faster, or it maybe be quite a bit faster. Really though, if you are at 1920x1200 or less, the 780 may not be all that much faster than the 770.
 
bleagh said:
If you are gaming at 1920x1200 or below, then no need to consider the 780.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree here. I think it depends on what you're playing and what level of graphic detail and framerate you enjoy. I had an overclocked GTX 670 running 1920x1080 and while it would run MOST games at 60fps+ with all the eye candy on, there are a few recent games that would still drag it down some. While some people may be ok with playing a game at 30-40fps, I don't like the fluctuations. A game running an average of 30-40fps means that at times, its going to drop down much further, that's just how an average works. A game that can run at 60fps+ all of the time is much less likely to ever have any extreme framerate dips that might be noticeable. I also like to use at least 4xMSAA and often 8xMSAA when possible or SSAA in some games. Again, with a 670 at 1920x1080, most games this is possible but not all. Crysis 3, Metro Last Light, GRID 2, Tomb Raider, and a few other newer games will drag a 670 down some at the detail level I like to play so I bought a GTX 780 and so far other than Crysis 3, I can play all games now at 1920x1080 at the highest detail level with 4-8XMSAA at 60fps+ so the upgrade was worth it for my needs.

Again this is subjective but what your needs might be at 1920x1080 might not be the same as mine and nothing short of a 780 or 690 is going to do what I really want it to do at 1920x1080.
 
bleagh said:
15% slower at what resolution?

Like I said in my post, Tom's is showing the 780 as only about 8% faster at 1920x1080, but about 23% faster at 2560x1440. Average those together and you are a little over 15%.

So depending on the game, resolution, and settings, the 780 may only be a little faster, or it maybe be quite a bit faster. Really though, if you are at 1920x1200 or less, the 780 may not be all that much faster than the 770.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that a 770 is basically a highly overclocked 680. If you're only seeing a 8% increase in speed, I would say that would be very dependent on the game you're looking at and keep in mind that you're probably comparing it to a stock clocked vanilla 780, the 780 has a LOT of headroom for overclocking. Most are overclocking at full boost anywhere from 1125-1200Mhz which widens the gap a good bit between the 780 and 770.
 
and the 780 scales way better with overclocking than the 770 too. the overclocked EVGA card is 33% faster than the stock 780 even at just 1920 in BF3 which is not all that demanding.

 
Last edited:
Prox7 said:
I think I'm going with the EVGA GTX 780 ACX.
Click to expand...

You'll be happy with it! I have one and it demolishes everything I've thrown at it. It was expensive, but it'll continue to destroy games for quite some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top