AMD 7770 vs. NVidia GTX 770: Benchmarked on my PC

B

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,433
I recently upgraded my Power Color AMD 7770 video card to an Asus NVidia GTX 770. It's the first time I went between brands on a computer. I uninstalled the AMD drivers and then installed the NVidia ones after I swapped out the cards.

I ran into an issue with the main PCI-e slot (x16) with the new video card. For some reason, it wouldn't allow my PC to power up. I tried the other PCI-e slot (which I later learned is just x8) and it works just fine there. That's how I benchmarked it.

I used 3DMark that I bought on Steam several months ago. If you're familiar with it, I used their "Fire Strike 1.1.0" option for both (what I call) Normal and (what they call) Extreme modes. I also used the latest non-beta drivers for each video card. Here are the results. What do you think? Should I expect more performance from the GTX 770 or is this on par.? Note that both video cards were or are stock clocked.

AMD 7770 FS 1.1.0 Normal
Score: 2714
Graphics score: 2906
Physics score: 9995
Graphics test 1: 13.92
Graphics test 2: 11.57
Physics test: 31.73
Combined test: 4.88

AMD 7770 FS 1.1.0 Extreme
Score: 1184
Graphics score: 1173
Physics score: 9729
Graphics test 1: 6.64
Graphics test 2: 4.14
Physics test: 30.89
Combined test: 2.45

GTX 770 FS 1.1.0 Normal
Score: 6962
Graphics score: 7841
Physics score: 9938
Graphics test 1: 37.76
Graphics test 2: 31.08
Physics test: 31.55
Combined test: 14.15

GTX 770 FS 1.1.0 Extreme
Score: 3522
Graphics score: 3685
Physics score: 9986
Graphics test 1: 19.41
Graphics test 2: 13.64
Physics test: 31.70
Combined test: 7.12

FWIW, I also updated my computer's Windows Experience Index rating. My Graphics and Gaming graphics were rated at 7.5 with the AMD 7770. With the GTX 770, they both went to 7.9. I also have screenshots that show these benchmark results along with screenshots of the GPU-Z results.
 
Looks like a decent jump to me. What are the rest of your system specs? The new 770 could be bottle necked by something.
 
Kardonxt said:
Looks like a decent jump to me. What are the rest of your system specs? The new 770 could be bottle necked by something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, roughly triple the score for graphics. I haven't played any games on it yet with the new video card. My PC has a Gigabyte motherboard, i7-3770K CPU (liquid cooled, but stock clocked), 4x4 GB of RAM, 750 W Corsair PSU (SeaSonic rebadge), 24" LCD (1920x1200).

The noise didn't go up at all. At idle, Kill-A-Watt says the PC uses about 20 W more than before. When running these benchmark tests, it went up by about 120 W from the old card's max.

I can post some pics of my case innards and/or GPU-Z screenshots when I'm home.
 
Its possible you're getting s small bottleneck from using the x8 slot. Also i yourcpu is watercooled why not OC it a little bit? That could also hold your card and system back a little.
 
ssnyder28 said:
Its possible you're getting s small bottleneck from using the x8 slot. Also i yourcpu is watercooled why not OC it a little bit? That could also hold your card and system back a little.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do plan to OC it. I was a little gun-shy to do it the past year b/c I thought it would wear out the CPU a bit more quickly. And frankly, I was coming from an AMD X2 CPU; the i7-3770K was so much faster than the old Athlon.

About x8 vs. x16, I was trying to figure out how much performance is lost between those 2 PCI-e slots. Certainly not a factor of 2. But I was surprised to learn that this benchmark implies only a few %. Granted, that data is a little dated.
 
Just for the sake of comparing:) was about $200 new after rebates and selling games
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2143874
XFX Radeon HD 7970 DD overclocked (1060/1375) mine is in an x16 2.0 slot for what its worth
FIRE STRIKE 1.1

3DMark Score: 7383
Graphics Score: 8029
Physics Score: 15130
Combined Score: 3114
Graphics Test1: 38.0 fps
Graphics Test2: 32.28 fps
Physics Test: 48.03 fps
Combined Test: 14.49 fps

GTX 770 FS 1.1.0 Normal
Score: 6962
Graphics score: 7841
Physics score: 9938
Graphics test 1: 37.76
Graphics test 2: 31.08
Physics test: 31.55
Combined test: 14.15
Click to expand...

course I'm sure yours beats mine after overclocking...asus is usually far superior to xfx

Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0 (in case you curious)

FPS: 40.9
Score: 1030
Min FPS:15.9
Max FPS:102.
Render: Direct3D11
Mode: 1920x1080 2xAA fullscreen
Preset: Custom
Quality: Ultra
Tessellation:Extreme

just curious...have you verified with gpu-z what kinda of interface its getting (you never know)
 
Last edited:
why does this thread exist? all you had to do was google search for 3dmark 770 results and compare with yours. no, your cpu is not bottlenecking, and no, your x8 slot is not hindering performance.
 
Odellus said:
why does this thread exist? all you had to do was google search for 3dmark 770 results and compare with yours. no, your cpu is not bottlenecking, and no, your x8 slot is not hindering performance.
Click to expand...

seriously....why you bothered to post if not going to be constructive
 
Odellus said:
why does this thread exist? all you had to do was google search for 3dmark 770 results and compare with yours. no, your cpu is not bottlenecking, and no, your x8 slot is not hindering performance.
Click to expand...

Odellus said:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=firestrike+770
Click to expand...
All video card benchmarks vary b/c there are other things in the system that affect the performance. Someone asked about the rest of my computer's specs, which I forgot to mention in my initial post, but mentioned in an subsequent post. I'm just adding my data.

According to that (admittedly dated) link I posted yesterday, the x8 vs. x16 perf. suffers by a few %, so probably not something a little OC'ing can make up for.

For those who want to see pics (of the video cards, my case, and GPU-Z of the old and new video cards), I posted them here.
 
primetime said:
Just for the sake of comparing:) was about $200 new after rebates and selling games
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2143874
XFX Radeon HD 7970 DD overclocked (1060/1375) mine is in an x16 2.0 slot for what its worth
FIRE STRIKE 1.1

3DMark Score: 7383
Graphics Score: 8029
Physics Score: 15130
Combined Score: 3114
Graphics Test1: 38.0 fps
Graphics Test2: 32.28 fps
Physics Test: 48.03 fps
Combined Test: 14.49 fps



course I'm sure yours beats mine after overclocking...asus is usually far superior to xfx

Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0 (in case you curious)

FPS: 40.9
Score: 1030
Min FPS:15.9
Max FPS:102.
Render: Direct3D11
Mode: 1920x1080 2xAA fullscreen
Preset: Custom
Quality: Ultra
Tessellation:Extreme

just curious...have you verified with gpu-z what kinda of interface its getting (you never know)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your data. Wow, your AMD 7970 looks to have a better bang for the buck than my GTX770 (now that coinflation is cooling down). I just downloaded an updated BIOS and Asus tweaks package, which I'll install on my system by this weekend and try some OC'ing. :)

I'll also try Unigine Heaven on my gaming rig, which I benchmarked on my old card a while ago, but haven't gotten around to benchmarking it on my new card. It won't be as "apples-to-apples" as my FS 1.1 results b/c my FS was done a week apart where as UH on my old card was done last Nov.

Yes, as you can see in the GPU-Z results I just posted in my previous post, it is using the x8 PCI-e slot.
 
You aren't going to see any real-world differences between x8 and x16 on a single PCI-E GTX 770. Especially if it's a PCI-E 3.0 slot.

However you would probably see a noticeable real world improvement by both overclocking your CPU and your GPU. As long as you watch temperatures and use sane voltages, you won't noticeably shorten their lifespan. I've never burnt a CPU out, and I had a 2.8GHz i7 930 pushed to 4.4GHz for 3 years.
 
Yes, as you can see in the GPU-Z results I just posted in my previous post, it is using the x8 PCI-e slot
Click to expand...

I wonder how if the fact yours is pci-e 3.0 x8 and mine is pci-e 2.0 x16 changes anything since were not both pci-e3.0...Guess it makes no difference...tbh i never even thought about it till now....as in would a pci-e2.0 x8 score the same as pci-e3.0 x8.........might need a R9 295X2 to really see a difference:)
 
Rizen said:
You aren't going to see any real-world differences between x8 and x16 on a single PCI-E GTX 770. Especially if it's a PCI-E 3.0 slot.

However you would probably see a noticeable real world improvement by both overclocking your CPU and your GPU. As long as you watch temperatures and use sane voltages, you won't noticeably shorten their lifespan. I've never burnt a CPU out, and I had a 2.8GHz i7 930 pushed to 4.4GHz for 3 years.
Click to expand...
That's good to know. I'll try OC'ing it, at least the GPU since that should be pretty easy to do with Asus' tweaker utility I downloaded (but haven't installed yet).

primetime said:
I wonder how if the fact yours is pci-e 3.0 x8 and mine is pci-e 2.0 x16 changes anything since were not both pci-e3.0...Guess it makes no difference...tbh i never even thought about it till now....as in would a pci-e2.0 x8 score the same as pci-e3.0 x8.........might need a R9 295X2 to really see a difference:)
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a good point about PCI-e 2.0 vs. 3.0. I guess I can Google a bit to see what the lane/bus speed is for them and see if x8 vs. x16 makes any difference. I guess maybe it would for a super high end card, like a GTX Titan, as opposed to a moderately high end card, like your 7970 or my GTX 770.

Your username reminds me that I haven't run prime on my new rig yet. I remember doing it on my old rig and man that brought it to a crawl! :eek:

Oh, I also ran Unigine Heaven on my GTX 770 this morning and will post its result and my old card's results from about 6 months ago the next time I'm on my gaming rig.
 
Its been proven that using the x8 slot will hinder performance but it will be somehwere around 2-5% which won't be noticeable. I think Overclocking will give you a small boost though maybe 5%-10%?

BTW have you contacted your motherboard manufacturer? To me it makes no sense that your gpu won't work in your first pcie slot. Maybe you should RMA the board?
 
ssnyder28 said:
Its been proven that using the x8 slot will hinder performance but it will be somehwere around 2-5% which won't be noticeable. I think Overclocking will give you a small boost though maybe 5%-10%?

BTW have you contacted your motherboard manufacturer? To me it makes no sense that your gpu won't work in your first pcie slot. Maybe you should RMA the board?
Click to expand...

you do have a point there...maybe check to see if its running latest bios....could be something they fixed
 
ssnyder28 said:
Its been proven that using the x8 slot will hinder performance but it will be somehwere around 2-5% which won't be noticeable. I think Overclocking will give you a small boost though maybe 5%-10%?

BTW have you contacted your motherboard manufacturer? To me it makes no sense that your gpu won't work in your first pcie slot. Maybe you should RMA the board?
Click to expand...
On a single GPU @ 1080p it's not going to hinder performance. The card isn't moving enough data over the PCI-E bus to hinder anything. You really only run into problems with multiple GPUs at high resolutions.

And PCI-E 2.0 x16 and PCI-E 3.0x 8 are the same bandwidth. There is no difference between the two.
 
Rizen said:
On a single GPU @ 1080p it's not going to hinder performance. The card isn't moving enough data over the PCI-E bus to hinder anything. You really only run into problems with multiple GPUs at high resolutions.

And PCI-E 2.0 x16 and PCI-E 3.0x 8 are the same bandwidth. There is no difference between the two.
Click to expand...

so Rizen...from what your saying...the 3.0 x8 has much better bandwidth than 2.0 x8.....just tying to make sure i understand you correctly .....thanks for the info;)
 
primetime said:
so Rizen...from what your saying...the 3.0 x8 has much better bandwidth than 2.0 x8.....just tying to make sure i understand you correctly .....thanks for the info;)
Click to expand...
Yep.

PCI-E 3.0 x8 is 8GB/s.
PCI-E 2.0 x8 is 4GB/s, and PCI-E 2.0 x16 is 8GB/s.

So your PCI-E 3.0 card at x8 has the same bandwidth as a PCI-E 2.0 card at x16 and twice the bandwidth of PCI-E 2.0 at x8. Hope that makes sense. There is a chart here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5458/the-radeon-hd-7970-reprise-pcie-bandwidth-overclocking-and-msaa
 
good info...thanks bud...that should clear some things up...i never would have known we actually running the same PCIe Bandwidth rate
Capture_zps0ebd4be3.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
interesting stuff to me...also worth noting if i ever update this dinosaur of a x58 board...i'll get a slight bump from the 2.0 to 3.0....lol i be holding off till 16 core cpus are being sold dirt cheap form ageing server pulls
 
Last edited:
Rizen said:
Yep.

PCI-E 3.0 x8 is 8GB/s.
PCI-E 2.0 x8 is 4GB/s, and PCI-E 2.0 x16 is 8GB/s.

So your PCI-E 3.0 card at x8 has the same bandwidth as a PCI-E 2.0 card at x16 and twice the bandwidth of PCI-E 2.0 at x8. Hope that makes sense. There is a chart here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5458/the-radeon-hd-7970-reprise-pcie-bandwidth-overclocking-and-msaa
Click to expand...
Thanks, that is good info. One can basically come up with a formula, using the PCI-e version, let's call that "n" and call the number after "x" as, well, "x".
2^(n-1)*250*x MB/s

In my case, PCI-e 3.0 x8 is 8 GB/sec. I don't know how much bandwidth my GTX 770 uses, but I'm guessing not more than 8 GB/sec. Perhaps a high end card, like a GTX Titan, would use more to the point where x16 vs. x8 would be a significant difference, even at n=3.

I have an update for more benchmarking on my Asus GTX 770, which I'll provide in my next post.
 
I ran Unigine Heaven on my previous card (PC AMD 7770) about 6 months ago and on my new GTX 770 yesterday and today. Why twice? Because I installed Asus GPU tweaking tool and played around with OC'ing a bit. I then reran FS 1.1 Extreme mode, but after OC'ing a hair bit more.

First, the PC 7770:
Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS: 11.6
Score: 292
Min FPS: 5.1
Max FPS: 24.8

Next, the Asus GTX 770 (stock):
FPS: 34.9
Score: 879
Min FPS: 17.7
Max FPS: 78.8

Finally, the Asus GTX 770 OC'd:
FPS: 38.0
Score: 958
Min FPS: 18.4
Max FPS: 86.0

I cranked up GPU Boost from 1110 to 1200 and Memory Clock from 7010 to 7770 (as a shout-out to my old video card). (All values in MHz.) I kept the fan speed at auto and I couldn't hear a difference. (If I manually set the fan speed to 100%, I could definitely hear it then, but it never got that high during this and 3DMark benchmarks.)

Finally, I OC'd just a bit more from 1200 to 1212 for GPU Boost and 7770 to 7776 for Memory Clock (it wouldn't accept 7777, which is what I wanted for aesthetics purposes, I know I'm being silly). I then ran FS 1.1 Extreme one more time and got the following score (stock shown tot he left, OC'd to the right):

Score: 3522 | 3759
Graphics score: 3685 | 3933
Physics score: 9986 | 9967
Graphics test 1: 19.41 | 20.71
Graphics test 2: 13.64 | 14.57
Physics test: 31.70 | 31.64
Combined test: 7.12 | 7.73
 
beowulf7 said:
I ran Unigine Heaven on my previous card (PC AMD 7770) about 6 months ago and on my new GTX 770 yesterday and today. Why twice? Because I installed Asus GPU tweaking tool and played around with OC'ing a bit. I then reran FS 1.1 Extreme mode, but after OC'ing a hair bit more.

First, the PC 7770:
Unigine 4.0
FPS: 11.6
Score: 292
Min FPS: 5.1
Max FPS: 24.8

Next, the Asus GTX 770 (stock):
FPS: 34.9
Score: 879
Min FPS: 17.7
Max FPS: 78.8

Finally, the Asus GTX 770 OC'd:
FPS: 38.0
Score: 958
Min FPS: 18.4
Max FPS: 86.0

I cranked up GPU Boost from 1110 to 1200 and Memory Clock from 7010 to 7770 (as a shout-out to my old video card). (All values in MHz.) I kept the fan speed at auto and I couldn't hear a difference. (If I manually set the fan speed to 100%, I could definitely hear it then, but it never got that high during this and 3DMark benchmarks.)

Finally, I OC'd just a bit more from 1200 to 1212 for GPU Boost and 7770 to 7776 for Memory Clock (it wouldn't accept 7777, which is what I wanted for aesthetics purposes, I know I'm being silly). I then ran FS 1.1 Extreme one more time and got the following score (stock shown tot he left, OC'd to the right):

Score: 3522 | 3759
Graphics score: 3685 | 3933
Physics score: 9986 | 9967
Graphics test 1: 19.41 | 20.71
Graphics test 2: 13.64 | 14.57
Physics test: 31.70 | 31.64
Combined test: 7.12 | 7.73
Click to expand...

if you don't mind rerun firestrike with normal settings...as i don't have the paid version to compare apples to apples....if it goes on sale for under 10 bucks i may purchase it one day but for now i refuse to spend 30 bucks on a program that started out being free for all....oh and when running Heaven Benchmark please list all settings as well...so when can make sure were comparing the test using exact same settings,,,people who have no interest in this thread can go away lol...i personally find it interesting how the red vs green compare at the same price point....
 
primetime said:
if you don't mind rerun firestrike with normal settings...as i don't have the paid version to compare apples to apples....if it goes on sale for under 10 bucks i may purchase it one day but for now i refuse to spend 30 bucks on a program that started out being free for all....oh and when running Heaven Benchmark please list all settings as well...so when can make sure were comparing the test using exact same settings,,,people who have no interest in this thread can go away lol...i personally find it interesting how the red vs green compare at the same price point....
Click to expand...
Sure, I reran FS using Normal mode. I didn't know that the paid version is what brings in the Extreme mode options. I don't remember how much it cost me to buy 3DMark, but I remember it was a pretty good sale, certainly not the $30 you said it's going for.

Here are the results for FS 1.1 using "Normal" mode. Note that my GTX 770 is OC'd as GPU Clock of 1160 (vs. 1059 stock), Memory of 1944 (vs. 1753 stock), and Boost of 1212 (vs. 1111 stock), all in Hz.

Score: 7362
Graphics score: 8421
Physics score: 9204
Graphics test 1: 40.47
Graphics test 2: 33.43
Physics test: 29.22
Combined test: 15.27

Note that this test, unlike any other, has my TV tuner recording a show int he background, so that is probably using enough CPU to affect the Physics score, but the Graphics score shouldn't be affected.

And how silly of me to forget to list my Unigine settings. Thanks for that reminder. For all my Unigine tests (AMD 7770, GTX 770 stock, GTX 770 OC), they are:

Render: Direct3D11
Mode: 1920x1200 8xAA fullscreen
Preset: Custom
Quality: Ultra
Tessellation: Extreme
 
ssnyder28 said:
Its been proven that using the x8 slot will hinder performance but it will be somehwere around 2-5% which won't be noticeable. I think Overclocking will give you a small boost though maybe 5%-10%?

BTW have you contacted your motherboard manufacturer? To me it makes no sense that your gpu won't work in your first pcie slot. Maybe you should RMA the board?
Click to expand...
I forgot to reply to you. It's odd that my PCI-e 3.0 x16 slot worked just fine when I had the Power Color 7770 connected there (which uses just a single 6-pin power adapter).

I won't bother troubleshooting it any further since my OC'ing should more than offset whatever I'm losing between x8 and x16. Not to mention I like it a little lower on the motherboard and having my stand-alone 2-lot PCI fan on top of it.
 
beowulf7 said:
I forgot to reply to you. It's odd that my PCI-e 3.0 x16 slot worked just fine when I had the Power Color 7770 connected there (which uses just a single 6-pin power adapter).

I won't bother troubleshooting it any further since my OC'ing should more than offset whatever I'm losing between x8 and x16. Not to mention I like it a little lower on the motherboard and having my stand-alone 2-lot PCI fan on top of it.
Click to expand...

Is your motherboard running the latest bios beowulf7? never hurts to check your card as well...although i'm betting the asus card already is..but the motherboard maybe not...so its couldn't hurt....while you're physics score is much lower than mine even while using a much newer cpu....its no match for a xeon hexa core running 4400mhz lol and thats likely why it scores lower in that area...aside from upgrading and or overclocking it...it is what it is but i doubt your cpu bound in any if many games aside from just a few
 
primetime said:
Is your motherboard running the latest bios beowulf7? never hurts to check your card as well...although i'm betting the asus card already is..but the motherboard maybe not...so its couldn't hurt....while you're physics score is much lower than mine even while using a much newer cpu....its no match for a xeon hexa core running 4400mhz lol and thats likely why it scores lower in that area...aside from upgrading and or overclocking it...it is what it is but i doubt your cpu bound in any if many games aside from just a few
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe my motherboard is running the latest BIOS. Maybe all the unplugging and replugging I did on the PSU somehow fixed it and my video card might very well work on the x16 slot now, but I won't bother with it now that it's working.

That explains the huge discrepancy in physics score. I figured it was CPU limited and not GPU limited since my physics score didn't change between the video cards. One of these days, I'll OC my CPU like I just did my GPU. :)
 
looks like a pretty even match up while both overclocked...though i kinda like having the extra vram if its ever needed...which so far it hasn't been
Yours..........................................Mine
3DMark Score 7362 ..........3DMark Score: 7383
Graphics score: 8421.........Graphics Score: 8029
Physics score: 9204..........Physics Score: 15130
Graphics test 1: 40.47.......Graphics Test1: 38.0 fps
Graphics test 2: 33.43.......Graphics Test2: 32.28 fps
Physics test: 29.22...........Physics Test: 48.03 fps
Combined test: 15.27........Combined Test: 14.49 fps

Render: Direct3D11
Mode: 1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen (mine won't do 1200 only 1080) so results be a little off
Preset: Custom
Quality: Ultra
Tessellation: Extreme

Yours..........................Mine
FPS: 38.0....................FPS:35.9.
Score: 958 ...................Score:904
Min FPS: 18.4..............Min FPS:20.2.
Max FPS: 86.0.............Max FPS:77.7.

Looks like both cards are pretty equal ...just boils down to which people prefer
 
Last edited:
primetime said:
looks like a pretty even match up while both overclocked...though i kinda like having the extra vram if its ever needed...which so far it hasn't been
Yours..........................................Mine
3DMark Score 7362 ..........3DMark Score: 7383
Graphics score: 8421.........Graphics Score: 8029
Physics score: 9204..........Physics Score: 15130
Graphics test 1: 40.47.......Graphics Test1: 38.0 fps
Graphics test 2: 33.43.......Graphics Test2: 32.28 fps
Physics test: 29.22...........Physics Test: 48.03 fps
Combined test: 15.27........Combined Test: 14.49 fps

Render: Direct3D11
Mode: 1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen (mine won't do 1200 only 1080) so results be a little off
Preset: Custom
Quality: Ultra
Tessellation: Extreme

FPS: 35.9
Score:904
Min FPS:20.2
Max FPS:77.7

Looks like both cards are pretty equal ...just boils down to which people prefer
Click to expand...
That's good for the side-by-side comparison. I wonder how the FPS is affected with 1080 vs 1200. I have an older 24" LCD when 1200p were more common. So that's an extra 120 resolutions that would have to be refreshed.

Sometime this year (hopefully sooner than later), I want to step up to a 27" 1440p LCD, which is the main reason I upgraded my video card. I'm sure that'll drop my FPS a bit.
 
beowulf7 said:
That's good for the side-by-side comparison. I wonder how the FPS is affected with 1080 vs 1200. I have an older 24" LCD when 1200p were more common. So that's an extra 120 resolutions that would have to be refreshed.

Sometime this year (hopefully sooner than later), I want to step up to a 27" 1440p LCD, which is the main reason I upgraded my video card. I'm sure that'll drop my FPS a bit.
Click to expand...

better leave money in the budget for sli lol.....might need it at that res:D who knows by then you be able to pick up a second for 200 by them....dam nvidia...would have been nice to have given yall 3 gig of vram.....so we shall see..think you have pretty nice setup anyway...who know you might find a xeon hexa core for your setup in next year or 2 super cheap as well...this can only help your cpu scores and work times

been running a bit hot lately...went ahead and ordered new past and cleaner

ArctiClean 60ml Kit
41Zp10XfwRL.jpg


GELID Solutions GC-Extreme Thermal
312xcepNhdL.jpg


figured it dam sure couldn't hurt...been using some free bee stuff in the bottom of my parts bean from many years ago lol
 
Last edited:
primetime said:
better leave money in the budget for sli lol.....might need it at that res:D who knows by then you be able to pick up a second for 200 by them....dam nvidia...would have been nice to have given yall 3 gig of vram.....so we shall see..think you have pretty nice setup anyway...who know you might find a xeon hexa core for your setup in next year or 2 super cheap as well...this can only help your cpu scores and work times

been running a bit hot lately...went ahead and ordered new past and cleaner

ArctiClean 60ml Kit
41Zp10XfwRL.jpg


GELID Solutions GC-Extreme Thermal
312xcepNhdL.jpg


figured it dam sure couldn't hurt...been using some free bee stuff in the bottom of my parts bean from many years ago lol
Click to expand...

I read that having more RAM isn't really that important unless one does multi-monitor gaming, which I have no plans to do so in the immediate or distant future.

True, if my GTX 770 can't keep up w/ the latest games in a couple years, I can buy another one for probably half the price I bought this one.

Cool, good luck w/ the cleaning solution and see if that helps you push your CPU a bit more. :) I'll stick w/ the i7-3770K I have for the foreseeable future, perhaps for the life of this computer. (Partly why I went w/ the i7 instead of the i5 some 1.5 years ago.)
 
zerodamage said:
Those Nvidia cards are champs!
Click to expand...
Just an observation: 7 years with [H] and just 26 posts. :eek:

Yeah, these cards are pretty good from what I've read. A former coworker had the previous generation of this, the GTX 670, and he really liked it. The GTX 770 is supposed to be even slightly faster than the GTX 680.

However, I admit I'm not a fan-boy of video card brands one way or the other. My previous (gaming) PC had a 6800 GT, which was then upgraded to an 8800 GT.

My current HTPC had an ATI 4550, which was then upgraded to a 6450.

My current gaming rig is the first time I went cross-platform on the same PC. I actually tried to upgrade the AMD 7770 to a 7870 Tahiti card 6 months ago, but had an issue with it and wound up RMA'ing it. Then it went OOS. Then the coinflation hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top