R9 290 vs GTX 770

[blackened23]

The only way you ever notice is by running Fraps or Afterburner with the OSD enabled.

If you just simply play the game without monitoring FPS, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference.

Thing is, most enthusiast overclock and like to monitor temperature/performance in game to keep a check on things...so the Afterburner OSD can easily turn into the Afterburner OCD

This, I pretty much keep the MSI afterburner OSD on at all times to monitor clockspeeds and framerates. Using super small font settings which are barely noticeable in the lower right hand corner....can't really see it unless i'm looking for it to check on what's going on with my GPUs. Oddly for some reason it doesn't work in BF4, as BF4 seems to disable all overlays. Weird. But it works in pretty much everything else. And yeah like you said, no one can make definitive statements about clockspeeds/fps without actually watching it in action.

 

[Savatar]

I'm looking forward to seeing how Mantle will come along (the low-level API in AMD's newer GPUs), so my next GPU will almost certainly be AMD. If it gets more widespread adoption, that could be a big deal (and, if it performs well in comparison to typical DirectX or OpenGL - which it should because it's more low-level)... but right now there isn't much that support it except for Battlefield 4. If it's true that it's very similar to the low-level API in the XBone and PS4, developers may adopt it to make cross-porting between the two consoles - and to PCs - super easy. And since it's open, nVidia could adopt it too (but they would need to wrap it in an abstraction layer).

 

[Jacky60]

I didn't say I was returning it due to temps, its the 75% fan profile, I understand you about the cards being designed to run at 95c , but I am having trouble keeping the card above 875-900mhz without throttling, thus the fan profile that sounds like a hoover. You pay for a card thats advertised at 947mhz and are lucky to get 875mhz due to throttle. This also is not a case airflow issue.

That sounds annoying, hopefully the replacement won't keep underclocking itself but I thought the fan was at 55% for base temps not 75%. What are your FPS like then it's dropping back to 875-900? As in are you losing vital frames or was the card taking it's foot off the gas because it had nothing demanding to do?

 

[Daedalus685]

It is utterly baffling how many people are still on about 2GB not being enough in the future.

Look at this BF4 performance review and compare the relative performance difference between the 280x and the 770 all the way up to 4K, link

@1680*1050 Ultra 770:280x = 92.7%
@1920*1200 Ultra = 93.3%
@2560*1600 Ultra = 93.1%

These numbers are all within the testing margin of error.

You gain NO relative performance from the extra ram on the 280x. It is faster because it is a faster card in that game.

Look at the 270xCF vs the 290x in the same review, the relative performance is identical across all resolutions there too... 4GB doesn't even get you anything over 2Gb.

Now at 4k the picture changes, in gurus reviuew you can see a relative change of about 10% between the 770 (2gb) and a Titan (6Gb) and in the order of 5% for the 770:280x. But in this case both cards are woefully unplayable (the Titan may be playable if you are not picky).

So sure, games are going to come out where cards can make use of more than 2GB of ram (they exist now at 4K resolution) but the cards strapped with 2GB are too slow anyway, they could have 10GB and not get you one fps more. 2GB 770s are only a limitation if you are planning to SLI and play at 4k (thus getting yourself the horsepower to play a game but limiting your scaling because of ram).

If you are buying a single card, every single one on the market (except the 690, though I have not seen a BF4 review since they fixed SLI scaling at 4K) is balanced with enough RAM to never be a problem at any setting the card has enough performance at. Unless you are in the niche that wants SLI and extreme resolutions paying more for an otherwise equally performing card just for extra RAM is wasting money (in a vacuum anyway)

When the next gen games come out and our 2GB cards are choking it is because the GPU is simply not fast enough, not because of the ram.


/Rant

 

[24601]

It is utterly baffling how many people are still on about 2GB not being enough in the future.

Look at this BF4 performance review and compare the relative performance difference between the 280x and the 770 all the way up to 4K, link

@1680*1050 Ultra 770:280x = 92.7%
@1920*1200 Ultra = 93.3%
@2560*1600 Ultra = 93.1%

These numbers are all within the testing margin of error.

You gain NO relative performance from the extra ram on the 280x. It is faster because it is a faster card in that game.

Look at the 270xCF vs the 290x in the same review, the relative performance is identical across all resolutions there too... 4GB doesn't even get you anything over 2Gb.

Now at 4k the picture changes, in gurus reviuew you can see a relative change of about 10% between the 770 (2gb) and a Titan (6Gb) and in the order of 5% for the 770:280x. But in this case both cards are woefully unplayable (the Titan may be playable if you are not picky).

So sure, games are going to come out where cards can make use of more than 2GB of ram (they exist now at 4K resolution) but the cards strapped with 2GB are too slow anyway, they could have 10GB and not get you one fps more. 2GB 770s are only a limitation if you are planning to SLI and play at 4k (thus getting yourself the horsepower to play a game but limiting your scaling because of ram).

If you are buying a single card, every single one on the market (except the 690, though I have not seen a BF4 review since they fixed SLI scaling at 4K) is balanced with enough RAM to never be a problem at any setting the card has enough performance at. Unless you are in the niche that wants SLI and extreme resolutions paying more for an otherwise equally performing card just for extra RAM is wasting money (in a vacuum anyway)

When the next gen games come out and our 2GB cards are choking it is because the GPU is simply not fast enough, not because of the ram.


/Rant

That would be true if you weren't able to turn off the stupid effects in games.

Thankfully we are PC Master Race, and we can

In a theoretical future with higher resolution textures you could run a game that has high resolution textures on a then lowly card by just turning off every other setting except for texture quality . This has been the case in the past as well.

But yes, if you upgrade every year or more often then it doesn't matter at all anyways. The games that will be out for PC that will have those high resolution textures will not be out until at least a year from now anyways. That is because AAA PC games are developed on the whims of the time schedule of the console games.

 

[braveheart0707]

the OP is back! lol, someone asked about my cpu, so here is the complete build
CPU: I5 4670k (plans to OC to 4-4.2)
Mobo: Maximus VI Hero
RAM: GSKILL 8G
PSU: Seasonic 620W bronze
Case: Define R4 with window

Zzz i am actually more inclined to go with the cheaper 770 solution, but my local store ran out of the nvidia game coupons~that lowers the cost/performance quite a bit since i am planning to sell both the nvidia game coupons OR the BF4 coupons from 290

 

[Will Robinson]

Seems a bit sad to build a nice new rig and then go with the last gen 770 which will struggle with just 2 GB of RAM and also be slower...:\

 

[3DVagabond]

It is utterly baffling how many people are still on about 2GB not being enough in the future.

Look at this BF4 performance review and compare the relative performance difference between the 280x and the 770 all the way up to 4K, link

@1680*1050 Ultra 770:280x = 92.7%
@1920*1200 Ultra = 93.3%
@2560*1600 Ultra = 93.1%

These numbers are all within the testing margin of error.

You gain NO relative performance from the extra ram on the 280x. It is faster because it is a faster card in that game.

Look at the 270xCF vs the 290x in the same review, the relative performance is identical across all resolutions there too... 4GB doesn't even get you anything over 2Gb.

Now at 4k the picture changes, in gurus reviuew you can see a relative change of about 10% between the 770 (2gb) and a Titan (6Gb) and in the order of 5% for the 770:280x. But in this case both cards are woefully unplayable (the Titan may be playable if you are not picky).

So sure, games are going to come out where cards can make use of more than 2GB of ram (they exist now at 4K resolution) but the cards strapped with 2GB are too slow anyway, they could have 10GB and not get you one fps more. 2GB 770s are only a limitation if you are planning to SLI and play at 4k (thus getting yourself the horsepower to play a game but limiting your scaling because of ram).

If you are buying a single card, every single one on the market (except the 690, though I have not seen a BF4 review since they fixed SLI scaling at 4K) is balanced with enough RAM to never be a problem at any setting the card has enough performance at. Unless you are in the niche that wants SLI and extreme resolutions paying more for an otherwise equally performing card just for extra RAM is wasting money (in a vacuum anyway)

When the next gen games come out and our 2GB cards are choking it is because the GPU is simply not fast enough, not because of the ram.


/Rant

Well, according to their charts 1gig is enough because even the 7770 continues to scale. I'd take those results with a grain of salt until we see more people with the same results.

 

[Silverforce11]

BF3 and 4 is a poor example of vram bottleneck, because 1.5gb (at 1080p) is "enough" for it, if you have more, all it does is load higher quality models further into the view distance as well as additional objects on the fly. It's a special LOD built into frosbite per their BF3 presentation.

I don't think 1080p gaming is going to be a problem with 2gb gpus for a long time. But you never know. Also, cheaper 1440, 1600p and soon 4K monitors will change that. Maybe in a years time, people are more inclined to go higher res monitors where it matters.

 

[RussianSensation]

I intend to game at 1080P any yes I love BF4.

The thing is, since I am college student, it is hard for me to shell out money for upgrades every year.

Due to this, i am swaying towards the 290.

If you are a huge BF4 player and you can't upgrade often, R9 280X or R9 290 are both better options than 770. 770 is not even in the same league for BF4 compared to the 290. The performance delta is massive.

The $400 R9 290 is trading blows with a $700 GTX780Ti in BF4 and people are recommending you get the 770 2GB? R9 290 is already 30-34% faster than 770 and with Mantle that lead will grow another 10-20%.

Personally I would wait for after-market R9 290s. Otherwise, just change the TIM and go from there. I wouldn't touch a 770 2GB for $320 with a 30 foot pole if you want to keep your card for longer than 18 months. Don't forget about resale value. You might save that $80 on the 770 2GB now but once games start to use > 2GB of VRAM, that 770 card will drop in value like a rock.

My advise is to wait for Asus DCUII R9 290. It'll likely be released next month and then you'll see Mantle performance too. This way you have no surprises.

 

[Vesku]

That's a tough choice since the price/performance ratio is in favor of the 770 (290 is 21% faster but 29% more expensive) but the 290 is the faster card and would be the better choice for BF4.

That's actually a low premium for the faster card compared to the general enthusiast GPU trend. The only complaint I've seen about the R9-290 is noise and that's mainly by people who don't own one. I have yet to see anyone attempt to claim the 290 isn't in a "sweet spot" in terms of price/performance, though.

If custom 290s really are going to show up in a few weeks, I'd recommend waiting. Simply because many custom models provide a better overall card for the price. Just as the custom 780s are more desired than the reference model.

 

[24601]

SNIP

Battlefield 4 is obviously all about the single player. Where's your Athlon X3 recommendation?

 

[RussianSensation]

Battlefield 4 is obviously all about the single player. Where's your Athlon X3 recommendation?

You very well know that multi-player stresses the CPU more but this isn't the point of the thread since OP has a solid CPU. You also know that I am not going to post something without many reviews backing up my data that AMD's GPUs are faster in BF4 than NV's in the same price bracket.

Multi-player testing
"The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 was playable at 1920x1080 with all in game settings at maximum values except for MSAA which was set to 2X. The Radeon R9 280X was playable at 2560x1600 with FXAA low enabled. It was also playable at 1920x1080 with 4X MSAA."

The AMD Radeon R9 290 and the GeForce GTX 780 squared off as equals from a frames per second perspective, logging 49.3FPS and 49.8FPS respectively at 2X MSAA, therefore, we bumped them down to the low FXAA setting to push their frame rates closer to 60 on average. Much like with TITAN, the GeForce GTX 780 also experienced significant frame rate drops during the run-through, while the R9 290 did not."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...deo_card_performance_iq_review/4#.UpCGXMTbTXk

The OP already stated he loves playing BF4 and in both single player and multi-player, without Mantle, R9 290 crushes a GTX770. In fact, due to erratic FPS delivery right now, even R9 280X provides superior gaming experience to the 770.

I don't know why people on this forum have such a hard time accepting the fact that AMD is most of the time offering a better product than NV on price/performance in nearly every price category and that NV is lagging behind in BF4 at similar price levels.

We have also seen time and time again over past generations of GPUs that low amount of VRAM eventually becomes a bottleneck and the card is worthless/or you need to lower IQ significantly. This happened with 8800GT 256 vs. 512MB, 8800GTS 320MB vs. 640MB, GTX470/570/480/580 - 1.28-1.5GB vs. 2GB card. Why make the same mistake again unless the OP wants to sell the 770 2GB shortly?

Even current generation console ports / current gen PC games are getting very near the 2GB VRAM limit. It's not a problem since they are coming in at 1.7-1.9GB but soon it will be exceeded.

R9 290 is a better value than GTX780 since it offers similar or faster performance for $100 less. If you think 770 2GB for $310-320 is better than R9 290 then you must think everything else above GTX770 2GB NV sells is unreasonably overpriced. $80 over GTX770 2GB gets you 30-34% more performance in BF4, 2x the VRAM, DX11.2 and uplift with Mantle. With after-market R9 290s an additional 15-20%+ overclocking headroom at quiet noise levels. If the comparison was a $320 GTX770 4GB, then it is a lot more reasonable imo.

How many people would have continued gaming on a GTX580 if they weren't running into the 1.5GB VRAM bottlenecks in newer games? You think it's wise to spend $310-320 on a card that has the lowest amount of VRAM among all next generation GPUs? Even HD7970 from 2 years ago had 3GB! Next gen games should bring significantly higher workload on the ROPs and higher resolution textures - ie. VRAM. Looking at how well R9 290/X series handles 4K and games like BF4, it's a much better videocard than 770 unless one intends to use the 770 as a stop-gap solution. In that case, saving $80 is recommended and reinvesting it into a 20nm card late next year.

 

[guskline]

the OP is back! lol, someone asked about my cpu, so here is the complete build
CPU: I5 4670k (plans to OC to 4-4.2)
Mobo: Maximus VI Hero
RAM: GSKILL 8G
PSU: Seasonic 620W bronze
Case: Define R4 with window

Zzz i am actually more inclined to go with the cheaper 770 solution, but my local store ran out of the nvidia game coupons~that lowers the cost/performance quite a bit since i am planning to sell both the nvidia game coupons OR the BF4 coupons from 290

Jump on that 290 and let us know how it performs!

 

[RussianSensation]

In addition to BF4, the list of Mantle supported games is continuing to grow. EA has announced 15 titles, then there is Thief and Star Citizen, and now Sniper Elite 3.

"Rebellion is actually building Mantle support into its homebrewed Asura engine, which powers all of the studio's games." ~ Source

 

[SirPauly]

We have also seen time and time again over past generations of GPUs that low amount of VRAM eventually becomes a bottleneck and the card is worthless/or you need to lower IQ significantly.

Worthless and need to lower IQ significantly? Talk about fear mongering!

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Buying a 2gb card today is almost as bad as buying a dual core cpu today.
If you find a 4gb 770 for a price you can stomach then enjoy. But 2gb 770 vs 290 is a no brainer. 290 all the way.

 

[96Firebird]

The only complaint I've seen about the R9-290 is noise and that's mainly by people who don't own one.

Did you even read this thread?

 

[Daedalus685]

We have also seen time and time again over past generations of GPUs that low amount of VRAM eventually becomes a bottleneck and the card is worthless/or you need to lower IQ significantly. This happened with 8800GT 256 vs. 512MB, 8800GTS 320MB vs. 640MB, GTX470/570/480/580 - 1.28-1.5GB vs. 2GB card. Why make the same mistake again unless the OP wants to sell the 770 2GB shortly?

Even current generation console ports / current gen PC games are getting very near the 2GB VRAM limit. It's not a problem since they are coming in at 1.7-1.9GB but soon it will be exceeded.

How many people would have continued gaming on a GTX580 if they weren't running into the 1.5GB VRAM bottlenecks in newer games? You think it's wise to spend $310-320 on a card that has the lowest amount of VRAM among all next generation GPUs? Even HD7970 from 2 years ago had 3GB! Next gen games should bring significantly higher workload on the ROPs and higher resolution textures - ie. VRAM. Looking at how well R9 290/X series handles 4K and games like BF4, it's a much better videocard than 770 unless one intends to use the 770 as a stop-gap solution. In that case, saving $80 is recommended and reinvesting it into a 20nm card late next year.

Maybe I have missed some relooks at the 580 1.5 vs 3gb cards. But I can't say I've ever seen a comparison where the higher RAM versions of identical cards have ever produced more than a couple FPS in extremely rare (and often unplayable) set ups such as surround gaming. I would go so far as to say that it is almost never worth paying a premium for an identical card just because it has more ram. Using techpowerup's release review of the 6970 compared to the latest review of a 270 the 580 has increased its relative lead over the 6970 (obviously in different game samples given the years between reviews) at all resolutions. So even if it is ram starved it is not making a big difference.

One should get a 280x for BF4 because it is faster in BF4 and baring the odd sale on the 770s it is also cheaper, not because it has more RAM.

I just cant personally imagine making a buying choice today based on a speculative 2 fps in a years time. In the case of the 770, the 4gb card is so absurdly more expensive that it is a joke to even consider it. And comparing the 280x to 770 really comes down to games and price at the time not the ram. I contend that a 770 is going to be too slow regardless of it being a 2 or 4GB card for max settings on true next gen games at 1440p or so anyway.

 

[Sunburn74]

Why is there no consideration being given to the 280x?

 

[seitur]

It is utterly baffling how many people are still on about 2GB not being enough in the future.

Look at this BF4 performance review and compare the relative performance difference between the 280x and the 770 all the way up to 4K, link

@1680*1050 Ultra 770:280x = 92.7%
@1920*1200 Ultra = 93.3%
@2560*1600 Ultra = 93.1%

These numbers are all within the testing margin of error.

You gain NO relative performance from the extra ram on the 280x. It is faster because it is a faster card in that game.

Look at the 270xCF vs the 290x in the same review, the relative performance is identical across all resolutions there too... 4GB doesn't even get you anything over 2Gb.

Now at 4k the picture changes, in gurus reviuew you can see a relative change of about 10% between the 770 (2gb) and a Titan (6Gb) and in the order of 5% for the 770:280x. But in this case both cards are woefully unplayable (the Titan may be playable if you are not picky).

So sure, games are going to come out where cards can make use of more than 2GB of ram (they exist now at 4K resolution) but the cards strapped with 2GB are too slow anyway, they could have 10GB and not get you one fps more. 2GB 770s are only a limitation if you are planning to SLI and play at 4k (thus getting yourself the horsepower to play a game but limiting your scaling because of ram).

If you are buying a single card, every single one on the market (except the 690, though I have not seen a BF4 review since they fixed SLI scaling at 4K) is balanced with enough RAM to never be a problem at any setting the card has enough performance at. Unless you are in the niche that wants SLI and extreme resolutions paying more for an otherwise equally performing card just for extra RAM is wasting money (in a vacuum anyway)

When the next gen games come out and our 2GB cards are choking it is because the GPU is simply not fast enough, not because of the ram.


/Rant

There are already games in which 2GB mean stutters / occasional performance drops cause of insufficient RAM.

Examples - heavily modded Skyrim and ArcheAge on max settings.

 

[Daedalus685]

Why is there no consideration being given to the 280x?

I would imagine it is because at an assumed 290 price point the 770 is the closest Nvidia card to compare too. The 780 is far more expensive.

 

[Daedalus685]

There are already games in which 2GB mean stutters / occasional performance drops cause of insufficient RAM.

Examples - heavily modded Skyrim and ArcheAge on max settings.

I'm not disputing the fact that you 'can' choke a card. But the data I've seen online (by all means show me more) shows that the vast majority of times when this choking happens the card is too unplayable anyway or the difference is very minor (thus you need a faster card with more ram, not just more ram). I would love to see an example of skyrim choking a 770 2gb but not a 770 4gb (there are lots of examples of 770 sli or 690 being choked where it should scale though, so if you want sli 2GB is silly to consider).

I guess I'm just arguing about economics i suppose. The situations where the 2gb is not enough are really few and far between and in my opinion not as important as the price and other performance of the card. The affect of the RAM is just vastly overblown, and should be much farther down the list of considerations unless you are in the minority that plays in these niches. It is not as simple as "lol, 2gb is not enough today or tomorrow".

 

[Gloomy]

I'm not disputing the fact that you 'can' choke a card. But the data I've seen online (by all means show me more) shows that the vast majority of times when this choking happens the card is too unplayable anyway or the difference is very minor (thus you need a faster card with more ram, not just more ram). I would love to see an example of skyrim choking a 770 2gb but not a 770 4gb (there are lots of examples of 770 sli or 690 being choked where it should scale though, so if you want sli 2GB is silly to consider).

I guess I'm just arguing about economics i suppose. The situations where the 2gb is not enough are really few and far between and in my opinion not as important as the price and other performance of the card. The affect of the RAM is just vastly overblown, and should be much farther down the list of considerations unless you are in the minority that plays in these niches. It is not as simple as "lol, 2gb is not enough today or tomorrow".

So you're saying the 770 is slow and using that statement to defend the card. Congratulations, I guess? :thumbsup:

I remember people making the same statement when the 6950 and 6970 came out and had 2GB. Thank god I didn't fall for that then, or I wouldn't have put nearly as many hours into Skyrim modding as I've had.

 

[Vesku]

I don't think it's relevant to BF4 specifically, but a bit of extra video RAM is useful if you enjoy using visual enhancement mods.