Jump to content



Photo

Geforce 760...4GB for 20-30$ more than 2GB..worth it?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#16 OP SirEvan

SirEvan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-April 03
  • Location: Santa Clara, CA
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: HTC One (AT&T)

Posted 27 June 2013 - 20:43

Thanks guys.  I was originally looking at a  770, but the 770 is so much more..almost double the price for maybe 20-30 fps on average more..  I don't normally play games maxed out, pretty high, but if i have to turn off one option or another its not a huge deal.   I spend most of my time either coding or in photoshop, more of an occasional gamer.

 

@the_evn_show:   The 20-40$ isn't a killer budget wise, I make enough that I could afford the 770 or even 780, but from a Performance/$ aspect, and the amount of time I spend playing games, the 760 is a better option, which is why I had gone with the 560ti originally back when the 500 series was out.  I'd never run sli, but with games coming out with large textures like skyrim and possibly BF4, if the extra ram will help maybe give 10% more performance, then 20$ may be worth it.    most of the 770 gtx's are around 399-419, almost 150$ more for 10-20 fps more...that's not that big of a value to me, since I am happy as long as i can get 30FPS+

 

 

Now if the 770 were ~ 330$, that'd be a different story, but for almost double the price, the value isn't there for the amount of gaming I do.




#17 DigitalManifestations

DigitalManifestations

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 16-January 04
  • Location: Oregon
  • OS: Windows 8 64bit
  • Phone: HTC One

Posted 27 June 2013 - 20:51

 

 

Now if the 770 were ~ 330$, that'd be a different story, but for almost double the price, the value isn't there for the amount of gaming I do.

Well, if you aren't strictly an Nvidia user, the 7970 3GB is for sale on newegg for 329 right now with Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3 and Bioshock: Infinite.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814202008



#18 Jub Fequois

Jub Fequois

    Owlblood

  • Joined: 06-June 04
  • Location: London, UK
  • OS: OS X, Windows
  • Phone: OnePlus One

Posted 27 June 2013 - 21:25

Textures are only getting larger, and now with better consoles that'll be true for ports as well. Skyrim and the Witcher 2 consume vram for breakfast, especially with a few mods.

#19 OP SirEvan

SirEvan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-April 03
  • Location: Santa Clara, CA
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: HTC One (AT&T)

Posted 27 June 2013 - 21:36

Well, if you aren't strictly an Nvidia user, the 7970 3GB is for sale on newegg for 329 right now with Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3 and Bioshock: Infinite.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814202008

I can go either way,  but AMD doesn't support Physx, so any title that specifically had support for that wouldn't use it.  IF it had support for both types then it might, but I think nvidia is more widely supported, no?



#20 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 27 June 2013 - 22:13

Err... I know how it works...  Perhaps you didn't understand what I said.

 

Higher vRAM cards will retain more value since more and more people will invest in higher res monitors since prices are falling, and games will continue to utilize the power that's available.  Hence there will be more demand for GPUs of this capacity as time goes on.  The extra $20 is a no-brainer.

The kind of value the OP should care about is performance. And I understood you correctly earlier. I linked to that article because it compares the performance of 3 versions of the same video cards (512 MB, 1 GB, and 2 GB). More RAM doesn't mean more performance.

 

That article is nearly 5 years old. It could be that memory on video cards are following a pattern similar to desktop computers. How much does ram matter? If this is 2002 then upgrading from 512mb to 1gb makes a huge difference. 1gb to 2gb also a noticable gain. Today? 8gb to 16 or 32gb is almost no difference for anybody.

More recent articles indicate very little difference between GTX 680 2gb v 4gb on a single screen and on 3x1080p. One reason to prefer the higher memory cards is that they often ship with a factory overclock. In those cases the gains in performance can be attributed directly to the clock speed (when they're compared at the same speeds the differences melt away). For example here's an example showing how the 2gb and 4gb gtx 670 have nearly indistinquisable performance when they're at the same clock speed, but when overclocked the quickest card 'wins'.


You can see a similar thing in Titan vs 780 benchmarks: Titan has a 'crapload' of RAM but the performance gains over a GTX 780 are entirely attributable to the extra GPU performance (overclocking a 780 by ~10% completely erases the advantage that Titan has in terms of CPU resources. If memory played an important role it wouldn't be that simple). Here's Here's just one example.

IMO getting too hung up on video memory when you're not running at least 3x1440p doesn't make sense. Even then, the differences are tiny (1-3 FPS). Maybe that's worth the extra money, but when you're running those resolutions you're probably doing SLI/crossfire in order to maintain a playable framerate so the costs are multiplied. Further, if that extra $20-40 gets you closer to a faster card (ie: from a GTX 660 to 7970 ghz) then it makes sense to go ignore memory almost entirely. It's possible somebody has a very specific use case where more memory makes a lot of sense for them, but I don't think "more is better" is necessarily the best advice for somebody on a budget where $20-40 makes them take pause.

You're right. I don't think the OP should get the version with more RAM even at 2560x1440. As for the article, yes it's old... but it shows that more RAM doesn't add more performance. I think a lot of people are under the impression that it somehow improves game performance when it doesn't really matter, even at high resolutions. Video cards these days come with 1 GB of RAM minimum.

 

Thanks guys.  I was originally looking at a  770, but the 770 is so much more..almost double the price for maybe 20-30 fps on average more..  I don't normally play games maxed out, pretty high, but if i have to turn off one option or another its not a huge deal.   I spend most of my time either coding or in photoshop, more of an occasional gamer.

 

@the_evn_show:   The 20-40$ isn't a killer budget wise, I make enough that I could afford the 770 or even 780, but from a Performance/$ aspect, and the amount of time I spend playing games, the 760 is a better option, which is why I had gone with the 560ti originally back when the 500 series was out.  I'd never run sli, but with games coming out with large textures like skyrim and possibly BF4, if the extra ram will help maybe give 10% more performance, then 20$ may be worth it.    most of the 770 gtx's are around 399-419, almost 150$ more for 10-20 fps more...that's not that big of a value to me, since I am happy as long as i can get 30FPS+

 

 

Now if the 770 were ~ 330$, that'd be a different story, but for almost double the price, the value isn't there for the amount of gaming I do.

Look at it this way, the cheaper one has less RAM but it also has higher clocks ("105MHz higher than the reference" as it says in the description). You'll get better performance with that card so ask yourself if you want to pay more for less performance. The extra 2 GB of RAM isn't going to make a difference.



#21 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 27 June 2013 - 23:31

The kind of value the OP should care about is performance. And I understood you correctly earlier. I linked to that article because it compares the performance of 3 versions of the same video cards (512 MB, 1 GB, and 2 GB). More RAM doesn't mean more performance.

 

He clearly does care about performance, and that's what are suggestions are helping him with.  Not sure why you think otherwise...

And that article doesn't make sense in this context.  Had it compared 2GB to 4GB at high resolutions, then it would make sense, but it doesn't.

Don't forget this is $20 we are talking about...



#22 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 12
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 28 June 2013 - 00:02

Out of these two the Gigabyte 2GB OC is clearly the fastest and best card. The extra 2GB is completely useless on the EVGA, and its base clocks and cooler are inferior.

 

The best GTX 760 right now is the MSI Gaming model; it's dead silent and runs very cool. This stuff actually matters as opposed to having more VRAM.



#23 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 28 June 2013 - 00:06

He clearly does care about performance, and that's what are suggestions are helping him with.  Not sure why you think otherwise...

And that article doesn't make sense in this context.  Had it compared 2GB to 4GB at high resolutions, then it would make sense, but it doesn't.

Don't forget this is $20 we are talking about...

Your suggestion isn't one that yields better performance. The cheaper 2 GB version is factory overclocked at 1085/1150 MHz (base/boost) vs. 980/1033 MHz. Why should the OP pay more for less performance?

 

The article is relevant because it shows that more RAM doesn't add more performance. Take a look at this for a more up-to-date example.

 

Here's an image from the link for your convenience:

 

Tanb6y1.png



#24 Kyang

Kyang

  • Joined: 23-November 07

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:11

So let's say I'm doing Photoshop work with larger 5000 x 3000px digital paintings with a few layers.  Still working on a 1080p monitor though.  Would that extra 2GB be more worth it then? 



#25 vetthe evn show

the evn show

    Removed

  • Joined: 10-June 02

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:46

Removed

#26 Kyang

Kyang

  • Joined: 23-November 07

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:08

No. Photoshop is almost entirely CPU bound: once you have an "okay" GPU (say a GTX 650) performance is basically identical across every card, The difference between 1gb, 2gb, and 3gb of ram is effectively zero (fractions of a second on a 1minute+ render). See here for an example.

You see similar things in premiere where the top performing card is the GTX 580.

Here's Adobes hardware performance whitepaper.

They recommend > 1 GB of Vram only if you're planning on running 5k red frames (~5000x3000) through premiere. For photoshop the GPU does very little - but if that ever changed, even 1gb of memory would be more than enough because you're not trying to run filters on 60 5kx3k images every second.


Also keep in mind the performance differences isn't for everything. Regular drawing etc won't benefit but if you spend a lot of time working with the liquify filter or content-aware fill then it'll be smoother. You should also know that the benefits are much less noticable in photoshop than aftereffects or premiere. The bulk of Adobes advice for photoshop is "buy a faster CPU, buy more ram, buy a solid state drive".

 

 

After reading over the links, what you said is about as to-the-point as I could ask for.

 

Thank you very much, that was very helpful. 



#27 DigitalManifestations

DigitalManifestations

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 16-January 04
  • Location: Oregon
  • OS: Windows 8 64bit
  • Phone: HTC One

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:28

I can go either way,  but AMD doesn't support Physx, so any title that specifically had support for that wouldn't use it.  IF it had support for both types then it might, but I think nvidia is more widely supported, no?

 

More widely supported in what respects? There aren't THAT many games that support Physx and honestly it is something you can get used to not seeing in games. I'm just saying in pure terms of bang for the buck performance, at 329 dollars the HD 7970 3GB with 4 free games is really tough to beat. I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet just because I already have a GTX 660 and it's a lot of money for me to spend when I can get a second card for SLi at a reduced cost.



#28 OP SirEvan

SirEvan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-April 03
  • Location: Santa Clara, CA
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: HTC One (AT&T)

Posted 28 June 2013 - 18:40

More widely supported in what respects? There aren't THAT many games that support Physx and honestly it is something you can get used to not seeing in games. I'm just saying in pure terms of bang for the buck performance, at 329 dollars the HD 7970 3GB with 4 free games is really tough to beat. I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet just because I already have a GTX 660 and it's a lot of money for me to spend when I can get a second card for SLi at a reduced cost.

 

 

Seeing the #'s in that graph someone posted are tough to beat.  Looks like the 7970 is sort of the best of both options.  Higher clock, and more than 2GB of ram.   The games offered aren't too bad, I've got some of them already but I'm sure I could sell the copies that it comes with.  AMD seems to draw more power than nvidia, but I don't game 24x7, nor am I running 2+ cards, so the change in my utility bill will probably amount to only a few cents. 

 

7970 it is. 

 

THANKS ALL!!!



#29 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 17 July 2013 - 20:51

I can go either way,  but AMD doesn't support Physx, so any title that specifically had support for that wouldn't use it.  IF it had support for both types then it might, but I think nvidia is more widely supported, no?

If it uses the AGEIA/nVidia implementation, yes; if it uses the HaVok/Intel implementation, it will be more CPU-driven. (CryENGINE 3, for example, uses the AGEIA/nVidia implentation, even in Crysis 3 - however, the implementation premiered in Crysis 2.)  More games support the AGEIA/nVidia implementation than the HaVoK/Intel implementation (if a game is nVidia-sponsored, it's pretty much certain that it will also use the AGEIA/nVidia implementation); however, the AGEIA/nVidia implementation costs nothing for a developer to implement (how much does it costs developers to implement the HaVoK version?).  A welcome, though surprising, factoid; Firefall - the currently in open-beta MMO - is an AMD "Gaming Evolved" title; however, for in-game physics, it uses Physx (AGEIA/nVidia).  You can use an nVidia GPU just for Physx - there is nothing in the Physx specification, or even AMD's CrossFire or CrossFireX specification roadblocking it.  However, you do need an additional GPU slot (PCIe x16) for a GPU to be used as a simple Physx accelerator - and how many PC users, or even PC heavy gamers, would go to that amount of trouble?