NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Review: The $400 Fight
by Ryan Smith on May 30, 2013 9:00 AM ESTThe 2GB Question & The Test
Before diving into our test results, I wanted to spend a moment mulling over NVIDIA’s choice for the default memory configuration on GTX 770. Due to the use of a 256bit bus on GK104, NVIDIA limits their practical memory choices to either 2GB of RAM or 4GB. A year ago this was fine even if it wasn’t as large as AMD’s 3GB memory pool, but that was after all a year ago.
Not unlike where we are with 1GB/2GB on mainstream ($150+) cards, we’re at a similar precipice with these enthusiast class cards. Having 2GB of RAM doesn’t impose any real problems today, but I’m left to wonder for how much longer that’s going to be true. The wildcard in all of this will be the next-generation consoles, each of which packs 8GB of RAM, which is quite a lot of RAM for video operations even after everything else is accounted for. With most PC games being ports of console games, there’s a decent risk of 2GB cards being undersized when used with high resolutions and the highest quality art assets. The worst case scenario is only that these highest quality assets may not be usable at playable performance, but considering the high performance of every other aspect of GTX 770 that would be a distinct and unfortunate bottleneck.
The solution for better or worse is doubling the GTX 770 to 4GB. GTX 770 is capable of housing 4GB, and NVIDIA’s partners will be selling 4GB cards in the near future, so 4GB cards will at least be an option. The price premium for 4GB of RAM looks to be around $20-$30, and I expect that will come down some as 4Gb chips start to replace 2Gb chips. 4GB would certainly make the GTX 770 future-proof in that respect, and I suspect it’s a good idea for anyone on a long upgrade cycle, but as always this is a bit of a gamble.
Though I can’t help but feel NVIDIA could have simply sidestepped the whole issue by making 4GB the default, rather than an optional upgrade. As it stands 2GB feels shortsighted, and for a $400 card, a bit small. Given the low cost of additional RAM, a 4GB baseline likely would have been bearable.
The Test
For today’s launch article we’re using NVIDIA’s 320.18 drivers for the GTX 780 and GTX 770, , and AMD’s Catalyst 13.5b2 drivers for all AMD cards.
| CPU: | Intel Core i7-3960X @ 4.3GHz |
| Motherboard: | EVGA X79 SLI |
| Power Supply: | Antec True Power Quattro 1200 |
| Hard Disk: | Samsung 470 (256GB) |
| Memory: | G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3-1867 4 x 4GB (8-10-9-26) |
| Case: | Thermaltake Spedo Advance |
| Monitor: | Samsung 305T |
| Video Cards: |
AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition AMD Radeon HD 7990 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan |
| Video Drivers: |
NVIDIA ForceWare 320.14 NVIDIA ForceWare 320.18 AMD Catalyst 13.5 Beta 2 |
| OS: | Windows 8 Pro |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
Enkur - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Why is there a picture of Xbox One in the article when its mentioned nowhere.Razorbak86 - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
The 2GB Question & The Test"The wildcard in all of this will be the next-generation consoles, each of which packs 8GB of RAM, which is quite a lot of RAM for video operations even after everything else is accounted for. With most PC games being ports of console games, there’s a decent risk of 2GB cards being undersized when used with high resolutions and the highest quality art assets. The worst case scenario is only that these highest quality assets may not be usable at playable performance, but considering the high performance of every other aspect of GTX 770 that would be a distinct and unfortunate bottleneck."
kilkennycat - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
NONE of the release offerings (May 30)of the GTX770 on Newegg have the Titan cooler !!!! Regardless of the pictures in this article and on the GTX7xx main page on Newegg. And no bundled software to "ease the pain" and perhaps help mentally deaden the fan noise..... this product takes more power than the GTX680. Early buyers beware... !!geok1ng - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
"Having 2GB of RAM doesn’t impose any real problems today, but I’m left to wonder for how much longer that’s going to be true. The wildcard in all of this will be the next-generation consoles, each of which packs 8GB of RAM, which is quite a lot of RAM for video operations even after everything else is accounted for. With most PC games being ports of console games, there’s a decent risk of 2GB cards being undersized when used with high resolutions and the highest quality art assets. "Last week a noob posted something like that on the 780 review. It was decimated by a slew of tech geeks comments afterward. I am surprised to see the same kind of reasoning on a text written by an AT expert.
All AT reviewers by now know that next console will be using an APU from AMD that will have the graphic muscle (almost) comparable to a 6670 ( 5670 in PS4 case thanks to GDDR5) . So what Mr. Ryan Smith is stating is that a "8GB" 6670 can perform better than a 2GB 770 in video operations?
I am well aware that Mr Ryan Smith is over-qualified to help AT readers revisit this old legend of graphics memory :
How little is too little?
And please let us not starting flaming about memory usage- most modern OSs and gaming engines use available RAM dinamically, so if one sees a game use 90%+ of available graphics memory does not imply , at all, that such game would run faster if we double the graphics memory. The opposite is often the true.
As soon as 4GB versions of the 770 launch AT should pit these versions against the 2GB 770 and the 3GB 7970. Or we could go back months ago and re-read tests done when the 4GB versions of the 680 came out- only at triple screen resolutions and insane levels of AA would we see any theoretical advantage of 3-4Gb over 2GB, which is largely unpractical since most games can't run at these resolutions and AA with a single card anyway.
I think NVDIA did it right (again): 2GB is enough for today and we wont see next gen consoles running triple screen resolutions at 16xAA+. 2Gb means less BoM, which is good for profit and price competition and less energy consumption which is good for card temps and max Oc results.
Enkur - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
I cant believe AT is mixing up unified graphics and system memory on consoles with dedicated RAM of the graphics card. doesnt make sense.Egg - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 and a GPU somewhat close to a 7850. I don't know where you got your facts from.geok1ng - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Just to start the flaming war- next consoles will not run in monolithic GPUs, but in twin jaguar cores. So when you see those 768/1152 GPU cores numbers, remember these are "crossfired" cores. And in both consoles the GPU is running at a mere 800Mhz, hence the comparison with the 5670/6670, 480 shaders cards@ 800Mhz.It is widely accepted that console games are developed using the lowest common denominator, in this case, the Xbox One DDR3 memory. Even if we take the huge assumption that dual jaguar cores running in tandem can work similar to a 7850 -1024 cores at 860Mhz- in a PS4 ( which is a huge leap of faith looking back to ho badly AMD fared in previous crossfires attempts using integrated GPU like these jaguar cores) that turns out to be the same:
Do an 8GB 7850 gives us better graphical results than a 2GB 770, for any gaming application in the foreseeable future?
Don't 4k on me please: both consoles will be using HDMI, not DisplayPort. and no, they wont be able to drive games across 3 screens. This "next gen-consoles will have more Video RAM than high GPUs in PCs, so their games will be better" is reminding of the old days of "1gb DDr2 cards are better than 256Mb DDr3 cards for future games" scam.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
We're aware of the difference. A good chunk of that unified memory is going to be consumed by the OS, the application, and other things that typically reside on the CPU in a PC. But we're still expecting games to be able to load 3GB+ in assets, which would be a problem for 2GB cards.iEATu - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Why are you guys using FXAA in benchmarks as high end as these? Especially for games like BF3 where you have FPS over 100. 4x AA for 1080p and 2x for 1440p. No question those look better than FXAA...Ryan Smith - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
In BF3 we're testing both FXAA and MSAA. Otherwise most of our other tests are MSAA, except for Crysis 3 which is FXAA only for performance reasons.