Just ordered a new GTX 770

D

dergreg

Cookie
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
442
Got a great deal on this card:
http://www.amazon.com/PNY-Enthusias...6EAN7U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396462468&sr=8

I'd been rolling with Radeons since the 3XXX series, just threw together a new system (Z87 board with an i5 4670k stock speed and cooled with the Freezer i30, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD in a HAF 922 case) and decided it was time for a new video card. I'd been back and forth with myself in trying to decide what to get, but then I got this shoved in my face for super cheap and had to jump on it.

It had better not suck or I'm blaming this entire sub-forum.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Should be a great choice. I had a EVGA GTX 760 which I then SLI with another one. 760 was a good performing GPU I considered getting the PNY 770 after I sold my 2nd 760 had to try SLI decided I wanted a single better performing GPU. I think it will make you happy. Some of the 770's can overclock to really close to 780 stock. Good luck and enjoy it.
 
cantoncobaltsssc said:
Should be a great choice. I had a EVGA GTX 760 which I then SLI with another one. 760 was a good performing GPU I considered getting the PNY 770 after I sold my 2nd 760 had to try SLI decided I wanted a single better performing GPU. I think it will make you happy. Some of the 770's can overclock to really close to 780 stock. Good luck and enjoy it.
Click to expand...

It's an overkill card(and system, really) for what I'm doing, but the price was right. Primary use is going to be 1080p gaming and media playback. But at least I'm ready for when I decide to pick a display with a little higher resolution. And at least, for now, I can crank the options up.

Is there as much of a latency issue with AA being enabled with nVidia cards as I seem to notice with the AMD cards?
 
dergreg said:
It's an overkill card(and system, really) for what I'm doing, but the price was right. Primary use is going to be 1080p gaming and media playback. But at least I'm ready for when I decide to pick a display with a little higher resolution. And at least, for now, I can crank the options up.

Is there as much of a latency issue with AA being enabled with nVidia cards as I seem to notice with the AMD cards?
Click to expand...
Latency issues with AA enabled? I've never come across anything like it with an NVIDIA history going back to G80.

I don't think you'd be able to crank up the resolution with this card and keep the same level of graphics options, to be honest. Higher resolutions will benefit more from raw horsepower before hitting any framebuffer limitations that may exist. You will be able to run with higher levels of AA at 1080p, though.
 
Armenius said:
Latency issues with AA enabled? I've never come across anything like it with an NVIDIA history going back to G80.

I don't think you'd be able to crank up the resolution with this card and keep the same level of graphics options, to be honest. Higher resolutions will benefit more from raw horsepower before hitting any framebuffer limitations that may exist. You will be able to run with higher levels of AA at 1080p, though.
Click to expand...

1080p is still a turd resolution, so I would think there's some room to breath (with current games) for higher resolutions.

As for the AA issues, I feel like I experience input lag when I turn on AA, or I have in the past: I generally play with most post-processing disabled, the jaggies generally don't bother me. It was PROFOUNDLY troublesome to me with my 8800GT, and there was a HUGE difference between enabled and disabled. Which is one of the main reasons I started disabling it.
 
dergreg said:
1080p is still a turd resolution, so I would think there's some room to breath (with current games) for higher resolutions.

As for the AA issues, I feel like I experience input lag when I turn on AA, or I have in the past: I generally play with most post-processing disabled, the jaggies generally don't bother me. It was PROFOUNDLY troublesome to me with my 8800GT, and there was a HUGE difference between enabled and disabled. Which is one of the main reasons I started disabling it.
Click to expand...
:( I like my 27" 1080p 144 Hz monitor, thank you very much :p.

Seriously, though, you might be more sensitive to frame pacing issues than other people. I think frame pacing becomes less smooth with the more AA you pile on, no matter what type of GPU architecture you're running on. This may be an issue with the CPU<->GPU limitation we have started to talk more about this generation. You can try turning down the max number of frames to render ahead to 0 in the driver control panel and see if it helps. It is set to 3 by default in NVIDIA's drivers.
 
Armenius said:
:( I like my 27" 1080p 144 Hz monitor, thank you very much :p.

Seriously, though, you might be more sensitive to frame pacing issues than other people. I think frame pacing becomes less smooth with the more AA you pile on, no matter what type of GPU architecture you're running on. This may be an issue with the CPU<->GPU limitation we have started to talk more about this generation. You can try turning down the max number of frames to render ahead to 0 in the driver control panel and see if it helps. It is set to 3 by default in NVIDIA's drivers.
Click to expand...

There are more pixels in some of the [H]arder setups I see around here than I'll ever have in my entire life. My 60hz 1080p television has nothing on the rigs some of these users have. It blows my mind. Of course, I also buy my stuff with a "bang for your buck" attitude. The law of diminishing returns is my best friend.

Once I get the card installed I'll go and tweak the driver settings. I should have it either Friday or Monday. I look forward to seeing what nVidia can do for me. I also love what PhysX does for the Batman games, and I've got to beat them(again) before Arkham Knight comes out.
 
Yeah I'm happy enough at 1080 for the time being. I see little reason to bump up to 1440 for what it requires in extra hardware cost. I'd rather just hold off and jump to 2160 in another year or so.
 
melk said:
Yeah I'm happy enough at 1080 for the time being. I see little reason to bump up to 1440 for what it requires in extra hardware cost. I'd rather just hold off and jump to 2160 in another year or so.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. 1080p will do the job. If higher resolution TVs are out when mine dies then I'll worry about an upgrade. For now, and the foreseeable future, 1080p is sufficient. I adore technology, but I don't feel like "just" a resolution increase is going to do much for me at this stage in the game. An elegant VR experience is more important to me than pixels, I think.
 
I have ran 3200x1800 on my 24inch screen and besides clearing up jaggies a little its hardly a big deal over 1080. I would really rather have higher refresh rate and gsync over going to 4k at this point. I am looking forward to that Asus 120hz 2560x1440 screen too.
 
misterbobby said:
I have ran 3200x1800 on my 24inch screen and besides clearing up jaggies a little its hardly a big deal over 1080. I would really rather have higher refresh rate and gsync over going to 4k at this point. I am looking forward to that Asus 120hz 2560x1440 screen too.
Click to expand...

I've never looked too hard at higher res displays, but I'm staring at my work monitor: 2560x1440 Apple Cinema display. So maybe I'll do some gaming on it to see how it looks.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I see $374. Is that a good price? Seems like a normal price.
Click to expand...

I got it cheap from a friend of mine through a local shop out this way. One of their vendors royally screwed them over and their apology wound up getting him a *very* sweet deal on a few things.

I was just using the Amazon listing as a reference.
 
So far I'm very happy with the card. I haven't hooked it up to my work display yet to see it at 2560x1440. That will probably be glorious. Also after hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top