NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Review: The $400 Fight
by Ryan Smith on May 30, 2013 9:00 AM ESTBattlefield 3
Our final multiplayer action game of our benchmark suite is Battlefield 3, DICE’s 2011 multiplayer military shooter. Its ability to pose a significant challenge to GPUs has been dulled some by time and drivers, but it’s still a challenge if you want to hit the highest settings at the highest resolutions at the highest anti-aliasing levels. Furthermore while we can crack 60fps in single player mode, our rule of thumb here is that multiplayer framerates will dip to half our single player framerates, so hitting high framerates here may not be high enough.
GTX 770 is going to struggle with BF3 at 2560 with everything turned up, but dropping down to 1920 is enough to get the average framerate well above 60fps, and consequently the minimum framerates should be well above 30fps too. In this case this is another game NVIDIA traditionally excels at, leading to a 15% performance advantage over the 7970GE. The gains against the GTX 680 are far more muted at just 6% - indicating that we’re not seeing much of a benefit from more memory bandwidth – while it’s another very big step up from the GTX 570 at 83%.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
pandemonium - Friday, May 31, 2013 - link
Wait, you want to compare FPS/dollar and then turn around and say you choose which one has PhysX? Well, the marketing team certainly succeeded with you, lol.Apparently you don't know that PhysX is a software code path that is supported and available regardless of what hardware you run. There isn't an abundant pile of evidence, through benchmarking or otherwise, that having a Nvidia card while running a PhysX supported engine will yield superior results compared to a similarly priced AMD card. Example? Take Metro 2033; probably the more demanding DX11, PhysX supported engine games available: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/377
inighthawki - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
PhysX is CUDA accelerated with an nvidia card present, and thus will have hardware accelerated physics (of course at the cost of some GPU processing that could otherwise be spent on rendering). There is a tradeoff. Personally I would prefer to just run it in software. When you buy something like a GTX 770 or 780, the GPU is typically the FPS bottleneck in your games :)SirGCal - Monday, June 10, 2013 - link
I really could care less about PhysX... And 60fps caps also give me migraines... I specifically build machines with 120fps+ caps... My current rig has a 144Hz cap. So smooth... Sure many people can't tell the different. Good for them. I get migraine headaches at 60 FPS with digital content. Including crappy movies which are even worse (~25 frames...). I have a very sensitive visual function of my body/mind. Actually a LOT of people do. That's why 3D movies really don't take off so well. Something like one in 10 can not actually see stereoscopic vision at all and only like one in three really enjoy our fake 3D effects... Something like that.But the extreme cases like myself, not only do I not enjoy it, but it causes actual physical pain. I buy the best to get 144fps, smooth as glass, all the time. And even doing so, I've never ever spent $4k on my gaming rig... heck, never spent more then $2k. So you're a bit sarcastic there. I guess if you don't build your own sure but... The real crappy part is avoiding the developers who refuse to open their crappy ports beyond 60Hz. There are some that leave the console locks in place on the PC. Those just never get purchased...
Mondozai - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link
Mention your migraines one more time, I'm sure we all missed it.firewall597 - Thursday, June 13, 2013 - link
Your one reason makes me lolololGastec - Sunday, July 7, 2013 - link
I for one choosed Nvidia over AMD because of the Radeon frame times problem. I would agree that not so many people buy a 4000$ computer in a shop, unless it's an Apple I guess :-P Though many so called computer enthusiasts do end up paying over time quite a hefty sum on hardware components and software. It's not because they are snobs wanting the best, but because the best costs so much money :)jonjonjonj - Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - link
its their 2nd best single gpu card not the 3rd. a multi gpu 690 is not comparable and amd also has a 7990 so that would make the 7970 the 2nd best card by your logic. i personally see it as a complete failure that their 2nd best card is equal to amds best card that came out 18 months ago. think about that the 7970 came out a year and a half ago. its nothing to brag about. before you call me a amd fan. i'm not i look for the best price/performance and will go with whatever company currently has it.go look at the bench for a 7970 amds top card compared to a 570 nvidia's 2nd best card when it was released. not even close. i realize the 7000 series was new architecture and they had a die shrink but you can see real gains.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=518
sweenish - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
3rd. Titan, 780, then 770.Gigaplex - Sunday, June 16, 2013 - link
I'm assuming you're only considering cards from the Geforce line and not Quadro/Tesla...iEATu - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link
Plus a better memory VRM.