Arend: You are about 500 points higher then my score in 3dmark11. This makes total sense considering you have your 2500K running 4.5 over my 4.0.
Agree 100%. It actually works out in some cases to be $10 extra per frame these guys are paying. The links to the scores is a perfect example showing the GTX 770 vs the GTX 760 with a + or - 10 FPS lead. Considering they paid in the $400 range for there card what you just said holds true with every single generation of NVIDIA cards. To the gamers that buy these higher end cards due to the need for AA and higher resolutions then this makes perfect sense. But other then that paying roughly $10 per FPS is about as smart as trying to watch grass grow in the middle of winter...
Exactly a month and a half ago the 760 was a no brainer at $250 but now with the 770 and 280x coming in at the $300-320 price tag it defiantly makes sense to get the better card for the added price of the extra game. BTW OP if you get the 760 it only comes with two games the 770 comes with three.
770 cost 100$ more than 760 and that's a 2GB version, if you want 770 4GB then you have to pay 150$ extra from 760, is that a good deal? I don't think so...
@ $300ish it is starting to make some sense even to me LOL For craps and giggles I ended up selling my GTX460 on eBay for $65.00 USD. So in the end my GTX 760 cost me $185.00 CAD!
Found a 760 2gb at 259.99 the same model and frame buffer 770 is 329.99 now the interesting thing is the same model 280x with 3gb frame buffer is $309.99 all of these are MSI gaming edition cards and all have a mail in rebate right now. If I were the OP it would be 770 or 280x. Don't go into this 2gb is not enough for modern games because Hilbert has proven you wrong the 690 is still faster that he 780Ti at 2560x1600 in newer titles. Since OP is on a 1080 display 2GB is more than enough in his price range.
Yes, but if he decides to SLI in the future, and he starts turning up AA and maxing out games he might want more than 2gb. Something to consider.
I would say wait and try to squeeze in a lil more and get that 280X 3GB. The 4GB 770 ones are a bit more expensive.. Or as others have said a 2nd hand 670. But still I'd try to squeeze in just a little more and get 280X... If you're already wasting 200 pounds/euros on a card might as well squeeze in a lil more and get the best out of it - so that you wouldn't have any regrets or doubts later. 2GB Vram limitation and so on.. it will come. If you wait a bit and get a lil more.. the 280X will be a much better buy.
oh man, my card didnt come with any games..... Was hoping it would but apparently at the time it was only the 770 and 780 getting blacklist with purchase.
I have 760 SLI, and it runs very well. As long as he stays as 1080p, the 2gb of Vram will be ok for the foreseeable future. Anything higher and yeah may run in to some issues w/AA.
not really. try maxing out bf4 with 4xmsaa, 130%+ resolution scaling and you'll be flying well above 2gb. this is with a current game. There's more games out there that will easily use more than 2gb vram, especially if you're running multi gpu and push a lot of AA. This is when vram can become limiting.
I'm inclined to agree to be honest. If I was spending in that price bracket or above I'd want a minimum of 3gb.
I don't have BF4 yet, but I will have it soon. I will test it out and see. Hilbert's BF4 test showed that 2gb is fine maxed out @ 1080p I seem to recall though. Granted, it is getting close...but it is still ok. BF4 loves high speed system ram supposedly, so maybe that has something to do with why the open beta ran so well for me when I originally played it after the last patch. /Shrugs
ultra is not maxed out. Throw some resolution scaling at the game (supersampling, basically) and it'll fly over 2gb usage. When you play on Ultra, 4xmsaa, you'll get great performance and you'll want to up the resolution scaling. But that will make you run out of vram.
