GTX 760 4GB v. GTX 770 2GB -- Suggestions?

[coalescent_flow]

Ok, my current build needs desperately 2 additional upgrades: hard drives and a video card.. The hard drive upgrade is easy.. Going to go with an SSD (preferably an Intel DC 3500 300GB) + a 4TB SATAIII drive for storage. The GTX 260 (stop laughing!) has got to go, I know I know -- but I'm kinda confused on what exactly to buy.

 

If I had it my way I'd get a GTX 780 and think nothing of it.. But I refuse to pay $700 for a GPU. I don't play games on even a remotely occaisional basis, but I am a graphic artist, so I constantly have at least one instance of Photoshop and/or Illustrator up at all times. I also am heavily involved in video recording of local bands and 3D rendering in various capacities.. So my question is this, I want a card that will last a good while (3-5 years) without becoming completely obsolete, while having enough processing power so I can throw anything and everything at it. Naturally the GTX 7xx series is the way I want to go.. But I can't decide between a 760 4GB against a 770 2GB. Can someone explain to me what exactly the differences in memory would effect the most? And possibly make a suggestion (you can try  to convince me to get something other than an EVGA card, but I'm pretty sold on going with them for the new card) on which card to get?

Thanks so much guys, and its good to be back!

[The Evil Overlord]

Out of the 2, I would place a vote for the cheaper one if you're not interested in gaming.

but if you're open minded, why a flagship card? I only ask as mine uses a GT430, (a dinosaur compared to a 700 series but hey) and my wife uses photoshop and painshop pro without any issues

 

And Welcome back :)

 

edit

I'm not saying get a gt430 (just to clarify)

[Alera]

I could be wrong but I don't think the 4GB card would offer any advantages for you for video recording or Photoshop etc, I'd get the cheaper one as Dushmany says. I'd bet that more system RAM is more useful for it than more VRAM on a graphics card is.

 

Perhaps something a lot cheaper like a 650 would do the job?

[Open Minded]

The GTX 770 is a beast.  If you can afford it, get it.

[Tuishimi]

Not gaming... get what is "just enough".  Gaming, go 770 WITH 4GB!  YEAH!  That's what I got.  :)  I like it.

[Salutary7]

I would personally go with the faster card since anything over 2gb doesn't seem to make much difference. As far as rendering scenes goes, I think that tends to be CPU-bound anyway unless doing something really vector-based like CAD.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

If you don't plan on gaming, then there's no point in wasting money on an expensive video card. An expensive video card won't give you better performance in Photoshop or 3D rendering software. For that, you'll want to powerful CPU and more RAM. You already have a Core i7-3770K so you should look at getting faster RAM or doubling the amount you have right now.

 

Personally, I'd get the GeForce GTX 760 simply because it's cheaper. And if I eventually wanted to get into gaming, I'd have a video card powerful enough to play the latest titles. Also, it's the cheapest GTX 700 series video card I could find.

[Kelxin]

If you don't plan on gaming, then there's no point in wasting money on an expensive video card. An expensive video card won't give you better performance in Photoshop or 3D rendering software. 

 

You might want to check that again ....

 

"" 

Photoshop CS5 and CS4 leverage the video adapter's chip (the graphics processing unit, or GPU) instead of the computer's main chip (CPU) to speed some functions. Photoshop and Photoshop Extended access and use the GPU when the GPU:

• supports OpenGL, a software and hardware standard that accelerates video processing when working with large or complex images, including 3D.
• has at least 256 MB of RAM.
• has a display driver that supports OpenGL 2.0 and Shader Model 3.0, which the GPU uses to perform rendering effects.

If your system meets the requirements, Photoshop turns on the Enable OpenGL Drawing preferences setting automatically on Mac OS, Windows, Vista, and Windows 7. In Windows XP (32 bit), you can turn on the option manually if your video adapter supports it. For instructions, see Enable OpenGL and optimize GPU settings in Photoshop CS5 Help or About OpenGL in Photoshop CS4 Help.

GPU acceleration and OpenGL settings can work but Photoshop on 64-bit Windows XP doesn't support them.

""

 

http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/gpu-opengl-support-photoshop-cs4.html#main_About_GPU_and_OpenGL

[coalescent_flow]

you guys rock! while I have given the 6xx series some serious consideration -- I ultimately decided on going with the 7xx because of longevity of the technology.. So its settled, next paycheck I'm gonna grab a EVGA GTX 760 2GB Superclocked with ACX Cooler for ~260. Sounds much reasonable than 600, 700 bucks.. God, I remember the days when AGP graphics was all the rage & Diamond was the big name in graphic cards manufacturers :)
Thanks guys!

If you don't plan on gaming, then there's no point in wasting money on an expensive video card. An expensive video card won't give you better performance in Photoshop or 3D rendering software. For that, you'll want to powerful CPU and more RAM. You already have a Core i7-3770K so you should look at getting faster RAM or doubling the amount you have right now.

 

Personally, I'd get the GeForce GTX 760 simply because it's cheaper. And if I eventually wanted to get into gaming, I'd have a video card powerful enough to play the latest titles. Also, it's the cheapest GTX 700 series video card I could find.

T H I R T Y   T W O gigs of ram? Seriously? Thats gotta be over kill... N'est pas? Although, I do catch myself lying awake at night thinking how much happier my motherboard would be with those two empty DIMM slots finally full....

But Anaron, you gotta admit, an SSD would also help tremendously too, yes?

[Kelxin]

Why stop at 32GB?  

/wink

 

BTW, an SSD makes a night and day difference, and in my opinion, is the best bang for the buck that you can do for ANY modern system.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

You might want to check that again ....

 

"" 

Photoshop CS5 and CS4 leverage the video adapter's chip (the graphics processing unit, or GPU) instead of the computer's main chip (CPU) to speed some functions. Photoshop and Photoshop Extended access and use the GPU when the GPU:

• supports OpenGL, a software and hardware standard that accelerates video processing when working with large or complex images, including 3D.
• has at least 256 MB of RAM.
• has a display driver that supports OpenGL 2.0 and Shader Model 3.0, which the GPU uses to perform rendering effects.

If your system meets the requirements, Photoshop turns on the Enable OpenGL Drawing preferences setting automatically on Mac OS, Windows, Vista, and Windows 7. In Windows XP (32 bit), you can turn on the option manually if your video adapter supports it. For instructions, see Enable OpenGL and optimize GPU settings in Photoshop CS5 Help or About OpenGL in Photoshop CS4 Help.

GPU acceleration and OpenGL settings can work but Photoshop on 64-bit Windows XP doesn't support them.

""

 

http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/gpu-opengl-support-photoshop-cs4.html#main_About_GPU_and_OpenGL

I'm well aware that Photoshop can benefit from a modern GPU; however, a GeForce GTX 780 isn't going to be noticeably better than a GeForce GTX 760. There's a bare minimum that's required for reasonable performance and exceeding that results in diminishing returns (see here). The only reason you should buy a high-end video card (e.g. $400+) is for gaming.

 

The GeForce GTX 760 costs $249 USD and the GTX 770 costs $399 USD. Why should the OP pay $149 more for a tiny, perhaps negligible, performance boost?

 

T H I R T Y   T W O gigs of ram? Seriously? Thats gotta be over kill... N'est pas? Although, I do catch myself lying awake at night thinking how much happier my motherboard would be with those two empty DIMM slots finally full....

But Anaron, you gotta admit, an SSD would also help tremendously too, yes?

32 GB might be overkill, haha. But yes, an SSD would help tremendously.

[PGHammer]

Out of the 2, I would place a vote for the cheaper one if you're not interested in gaming.

but if you're open minded, why a flagship card? I only ask as mine uses a GT430, (a dinosaur compared to a 700 series but hey) and my wife uses photoshop and painshop pro without any issues

 

And Welcome back :)

 

edit

I'm not saying get a gt430 (just to clarify)

Let's be serious - the ONLY reason why you would need greater than 2 GB on a GPU (any GPU) is if you are gaming at a resolution higher than 1920x1080 *and* you max anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.  (I can state that categorically because i upgraded less than 24 hours ago to an nVidia GTX 550 Ti (a factory-refurbished model, at that - the GTX 550 Ti has not been new-production for two years) and it has but 1GB of GDDR5 and can play *Rift* at 1920x1080 and all-maxed, and if the GTX 550 Ti can do it, anything newer certainly should be able to.

 

That said, the 2 GB nV cards on the table include the GTX 650 (both non-Ti and Ti/Ti BOOST), GTX 660, and GTX 760.

[Andre S. Veteran]

I think it's safe to say that 4GB is a marketing gimmick by video card manufacturers and only serves to confuse customers. There are no performance advantages whatsoever to a 4GB card vs the reference 2GB model except perhaps at otherworldly resolutions, where the game is already unplayable anyway.

[PGHammer]

I think it's safe to say that 4GB is a marketing gimmick by video card manufacturers and only serves to confuse customers. There are no performance advantages whatsoever to a 4GB card vs the reference 2GB model except perhaps at otherworldy resolutions, where the game is already unplayable anyway.

Asik - that is why I said what I said, and I have empirical data to back it up.

 

In most cases, and for most games, at desktop resolutions (typically 1920x1080, or TV-equivalent 1080p@60 Hz), 1GB GDDR5 is plenty - such is the standard of the nVidia GTX 550 Ti and AMD HD5770, both of which have been EOL for two years plus.  If you have either GPU and are suffering from in-game lag or bottlenecks, I can state with practical certainty that your GPU is not the cause, as I have a Q6600 - which is older than either - and have absatively posilutely ZERO lag - for GPU or any other reason.  (Not in RIFT, DC Universe Online, and not even in Crysis 2 Maximum Edition - all except the last are fully firewalled; C2ME is either all-Extreme+2xAA/Edge AA or all-Ultra and no AA.)

[The Evil Overlord]

Let's be serious - the ONLY reason why you would need greater than 2 GB on a GPU (any GPU) is if you are gaming at a resolution higher than 1920x1080 *and* you max anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.  (I can state that categorically because i upgraded less than 24 hours ago to an nVidia GTX 550 Ti (a factory-refurbished model, at that - the GTX 550 Ti has not been new-production for two years) and it has but 1GB of GDDR5 and can play *Rift* at 1920x1080 and all-maxed, and if the GTX 550 Ti can do it, anything newer certainly should be able to.

 

That said, the 2 GB nV cards on the table include the GTX 650 (both non-Ti and Ti/Ti BOOST), GTX 660, and GTX 760.

When was I not serious?

it turned up years ago on ebay for ?60, so I couldn't pass it up

[PGHammer]

When was I not serious?

it turned up years ago on ebay for ?60, so I couldn't pass it up

I'll admit - it is darn difficult to pass up a steal such as that; I got the GTX 550 Ti I mentioned in the thread for not even $64USD - and that includes taxes.

 

All I said is that it is severe overkill for all except outlier usage.

[Farchord]

Look at it from 2 fronts:

 

760 4gb: Unless you go in a 2-3 screen surround configuration, you don't need that much ram. (Surround = 2-3 screens one on the side of each other, with a game spread amongst them)

 

4gb can also be useful in over 1080p resolution scenarios.

 

If you have a normal monitor setup (i.e. only 1 screen with a game on it), then 2gb is more than enough.

 

So all winds down to 760 vs 770. Yes, there's a difference. 760 is the best money-to-performance ratio. But if you really only have a choice between those 2 cards, I'd go for the 770. Why? Because the 4gb of ram will add a price overhead to the 760, which will probably make it almost on-par price-wise with the 770, which will give you better performance.

 

If you have the choice, get a 760, 2gb.

[The Evil Overlord]

I'll admit - it is darn difficult to pass up a steal such as that; I got the GTX 550 Ti I mentioned in the thread for not even $64USD - and that includes taxes.

 

All I said is that it is severe overkill for all except outlier usage.

Ok, but I still don't understand why you quoted me, OP asked between 2 specific cards, as to what he intends to do with them, that is none of my business, and I did ask if he was open to the idea of getting a lower spec card if he had no intention to game on it...

As far as I'm concerned, he can spend his money on whatever he likes, it's his money.

[PGHammer]

Ok, but I still don't understand why you quoted me, OP asked between 2 specific cards, as to what he intends to do with them, that is none of my business, and I did ask if he was open to the idea of getting a lower spec card if he had no intention to game on it...

As far as I'm concerned, he can spend his money on whatever he likes, it's his money.

I didn't - the post was directed at everyone in the thread (if not the particular subforum).  As bad as the economy still is, why overspend/overbuy if you don't have to?