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
Catalina588 - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Folding@Home Big-Time Discrepancy in reviewsCan anyone explain the material differences between this review's Compute Results for Folding@Home and the same FAHbench run at Tom's Hardware?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-77...
Since FAHbench is self-contained -- load and go -- it's hard to figure how the results could be so different.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
We're using a newer version of the benchmark, 1.2. FAHBench 1.2 has some very big performance optimizations that aren't in 1.1x.kyuu - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Not bad, but I think I'd still just find a 7970 with a good cooler on sale and overclock the crap out of it if I was looking to buy a high-end GPU.Lt_dan - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
People should be looking at other websites. This review is showing scores that don't even make sense. The 7970, on bf3, has the same score as tomshardware's review of the 680, which was done over the year ago.azixtgo - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
nobody cares. If this were ~$300 I'd seriously consider it. But getting a 7950 for ~$300 along with 4 quality games just makes me not care about a $400 card thats already out of my budget anyway. Nvidia always keeps their best just too high. At 400 its competing in value against a card with more to offer. They don't have the concept of winning by pricing right, but I guess they've never had to go there like AMD did.Razorbak86 - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Just because YOU don't care, doesn't mean that NOBODY cares. Please don't attempt to speak for the rest of us.agentwax - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Hmm recently built a system with gigabyte 670 and was looking to go sli in the near future. Upon reading this review I'm second guessing. Should I get a second 670 in a few months and go sli Or a 770 and go sli some time around christmas? Very happy with temps and noise on gigabyte wind force 670thunderising - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
Now it's time for a HD 7970 GHZ GHZ MEGA GHZ edition with faster clocks and a new driver release for improved performance. HeheheAt least that would be better than a HD8950 = HD 7970 with faster clock speeds.
evolucion8 - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
That is not correct. The HD 7970 has a bigger bus, but being 28nm instead of 40nm like the HD 6970 means that the HD 7970 was able to achieve great performance gains by being 354mm2 compared to the HD 6970 which is around 389mm2colonelclaw - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
Is anyone else as disappointed as I am about pricing all the way across the board with this new generation? As an owner of a GTX580 I was thinking it's about time for an upgrade, but all these high end cards look 100 $/£/€ overpriced to me. I wasn't happy about paying £450 for my 580 but there's no way in hell I'm prepared to pay £550 for the 780, and the 770 isn't a big enough upgrade to interest me.I'm more than a little suspicious that AMD and NVidia are agreeing on price points in order to make larger profits. Having just 2 companies in a market sector makes it pretty easy for them to do this.