# Is 2 gb vram enough for games in 21:9 2560x1080



## gasolin (Jan 1, 2014)

I have some high pitched noise that sounds like coil whine, that i only have out of my speakers  http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...re-is-my-active-speakers.196271/#post-3041620 I have an asus hd 7970 Dcuii Top that might give my coil whine doing games, it might be my psu seasonic g-650 havn't found out what is the problem (trying to figure it out).

First i bought my asus hd 7970 (like the performance of the card) and then my asus monitor (21:9 2560x1080) that i hope wil be upgradable to g sync, so if i can upgrade my screen to g sync i would like to be prepared for it with a nvidia gpu (but also to find out if that is creating the high pitched noise)

Minimum gpu for gsync is a gtx 660 so this (mabye a second one later) or a 670/760 is what i am looking for (used).

As new a 3-4 gb gpu is sometimes up to 25% more expensive then a 2gb card (nvidia) and not many is for sale used, so only resonable priced nvidia card is the 2 gb versions.

My monitor is a asus 21:9 2560x1080, i have bf3,4, bioshock 1-2,infinite, hitman, sants row,mass effect 3, need for speed shift 1,2, dirt 3,boarderlands 2 , crysis 1-3, not shure how much vram bf 4 64bit bit uses, because i can't use msi afterburner to show fps, vram usage (beta is surpose to work fine), only game i have that i have noticed use more then 2 gb vram (full hd) is crysis 3

Is 2gb vram enough for games in 21:9 2560x1080


----------



## RCoon (Jan 1, 2014)

Unless you play Skyrim, yes.
/Thread


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jan 1, 2014)

Assassins creed IV goes over 2gb vram at 1080p with all the bells and whistles. I'd look at a 3GB card at least, it's true not many games at the moment fully utilize it but within the next year you'll be glad you have that capability.


----------



## gasolin (Jan 1, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Unless you play Skyrim, yes.
> /Thread




DAAAM i have just bought skyrim premium for 1/6 of what it normal costs her in denmark (very good price)


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 1, 2014)

I play at 2560x1440 = 3.686 million pixels.  2560x1080 = 2.764 million pixels.  My resolution is about 33% larger in terms of pixels and I almost never see more than 2.5Gb of Vram usage.  2GB of Vram sounds comfortable for your resolution.  Also, Skyrim will be fine unless you load lots of texture mods and these eat Vram because they're not coded well.  A well coded game does not have to eat lots of video memory.  It's custom mods that do that.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 1, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> I play at 2560x1440 = 3.686 million pixels.  2560x1080 = 2.764 million pixels.  My resolution is about 33% larger in terms of pixels and I almost never see more than 2.5Gb of Vram usage.  2GB of Vram sounds comfortable for your resolution.  Also, Skyrim will be fine unless you load lots of texture mods and these eat Vram because they're not coded well.  A well coded game does not have to eat lots of video memory.  It's custom mods that do that.



Its not that they aren't coded well, its the fact the mod authors use uncompressed textures when they create them about 90% of the time.


----------



## gasolin (Jan 1, 2014)

Some say a gtx 760 with 4gb vram dosn't have enough gpu power to utilize all of the 4 gb ram (or just alot more then 2gb vram), but also sli will make 2 midrange card's better to utilize much more then 2gb vram.

Which non high end card's are good at taking advantage of more then 2gb vram?


----------



## erocker (Jan 1, 2014)

Vram is a buffer. So, technically the faster the GPU the faster it can process the data from the buffer. A 660 wouldn't be my first choice for a 2gb card. Having read your post, I don't really have any idea which card you're looking at.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 1, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Which non high end card's are good at taking advantage of more then 2gb vram?



None.  That's the point - that much texture processing requires a lot of gpu power too - not just memory.  They talk about the 290X 4GB being great for 4K monitor gaming but that's a myth.  You ideally need 2 cards in crossfire for that to work smoothly.  If you want to see more than 2 Gb of Vram usage being utilised effectively you'll need a high end card (like yours at the lowest end up to 290, 290X and 780, 780Ti and Titan).


----------



## RCoon (Jan 1, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Some say a gtx 760 with 4gb vram dosn't have enough gpu power to utilize all of the 4 gb ram (or just alot more then 2gb vram), but also sli will make 2 midrange card's better to utilize much more then 2gb vram.
> 
> Which non high end card's are good at taking advantage of more then 2gb vram?



Just buy a 760 2GB or give us your budget and buy the biggest shiniest thing you can afford.
7970 was/and still is a perfectly good card.


----------



## buildzoid (Jan 1, 2014)

Unless you have major screen tearing forget about gsync and stick to the HD7970 as the cheapest nvidia card close to it in speed is the GTX 770 or GTX 680 everything worse than that is a down grade.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 1, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> Unless you have major screen tearing forget about gsync and stick to the HD7970 as the cheapest nvidia card close to it in speed is the GTX 770 or GTX 680 everything worse than that is a down grade.



Following from this, I just realised OP still has a 7970. No reason to upgrade at all from a solid high end card to a midrange pile of ass.


----------



## gasolin (Jan 1, 2014)

erocker said:


> Vram is a buffer. So, technically the faster the GPU the faster it can process the data from the buffer. A 660 wouldn't be my first choice for a 2gb card. Having read your post, I don't really have any idea which card you're looking at.



Depends on the price, 2x660 would be ideal, beacuse  it is good enough for g sync and just read that 2x650 ti boost in sli (as i remember gtx 650 boost dosn't support g sync) is often better then a gtx 680,hd 7970 ghz edition (which i have), i would love to have a 3-4 gb card, but as i wrote, not many 3-4gb nvidia cards are for sale used, also many think a 3-4gb card is worth a fortune (a lot more) compared to a 2gb card, only beacuse of the difference in vram. Gtx 660/660 ti in sli dosn't require more then the power my psu have about 620-650watt and if i have to buy a new psu i don't have to buy a 850watt+ psu http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm

Gtx 660 is also alot cheaper the a gtx 670, where a gtx 660 ti is mabye something with almost no price difference to a gtx660 and just a bit faster. Had a Msi tf gtx 660 oc i choose to sell and get me a asus hd 7970 ghz instead of a second card, so i know a gtx 660 is good enough for most games i play (crysis 1-3,boarderlands2,bf 3, dirt,grid race driver, need for speed)

After running the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost SLI through our test suite, I have to admit that I'm impressed. The duo delivered performance easily matching and often exceeding much more expensive single-card options such as the GeForce GTX 680 and Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, and they don't cost as much. SLI multi-GPU scaling works well with all of our titles except for F1 2012. Scaling by going from one to two GTX 650 Ti Boost cards is around 70%, even with F1 2012 taken into account. Unlike AMD, NVIDIA does a good job of maintaining its SLI profiles, so you should be able to play new games without a long wait for multi-GPU support. However, the risk that a game will not be supported still exists, and you might, at worst, end up with single-card performance. This is in my opinion, given the massive performance-per-dollar advantage, an acceptable tradeoff. I would definitely recommend a GTX 650 Ti Boost SLI setup to a friend looking to spend as little money as possible on a high-end gaming rig

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Boost_SLI/23.html


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Following from this, I just realised OP still has a 7970. No reason to upgrade at all from a solid high end card to a midrange pile of ass.



Not shure if i have problems with my gpu and if i would make shure i can run g sync i have to have a nvida gpu


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> Unless you have major screen tearing forget about gsync and stick to the HD7970 as the cheapest nvidia card close to it in speed is the GTX 770 or GTX 680 everything worse than that is a down grade.



I might have problems with my gpu, getting a new one i would choose one from nvidia and then mabye another one later in sli.

I am trying to figure out if my gpu is giving me problems, if it is i guess i would rma it, i might get a R9 280X (they stopped selling asus hd 7970 ghz), selling the R9 280X (if my problem is with my gpu, i can rma it and get a R9 280X) i would be able to get 2 used cards from nvidia from what i can get from the rma'ed card(or a better one like a used 770 instead of 2x660), then i also would be ready if i would go for g sync.

I am therfore interested to know if 2 gb vram is good enough for gaming in 2560x1080, because most used cards are 2 gb and 3-4gb cards are expensive

Not saying i am gonna buy a new gpu, beacuse i have to do alot of testing to know if it's my gpu,psu,soundard,speakers or even my mb that's giving me problems with a coil whine like nosie,sound in my speakers

Another thing is with a gsync monitor you don't need a gtx 770 or something better just 30 fps would be enough


----------



## RCoon (Jan 2, 2014)

gasolin said:


> I might have problems with my gpu, getting a new one i would choose one from nvidia and then mabye another one later in sli.
> 
> I am trying to figure out if my gpu is giving me problems, if it is i guess i would rma it, i might get a R9 280X (they stopped selling asus hd 7970 ghz), selling the R9 280X (if my problem is with my gpu, i can rma it and get a R9 280X) i would be able to get 2 used cards from nvidia from what i can get from the rma'ed card(or a better one like a used 770 instead of 2x660), then i also would be ready if i would go for g sync.
> 
> ...



Coil whine is no doubt from the gpu, it's not a problem, just an irritation. Not really worth the hassle of rmaing to buy a second rated gpu for gsync...


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

erocker said:


> Vram is a buffer. So, technically the faster the GPU the faster it can process the data from the buffer. A 660 wouldn't be my first choice for a 2gb card. Having read your post, I don't really have any idea which card you're looking at.


Technically, I suppose that is right... But which is faster ram bandwidth wise... A 760 with it's ram at 1500mhz or a 770 with it's ram at 1500mhz (assuming they are both 256 bit cards of course)? Since they both have the same exact bandwidth it wouldnt be feeding the gpu any faster would it? So why would gpu power matter? It's like hooking up a firehose to your garden hose spicket and expecting it to put out more water. Just because the hose is bigger doesn't mean the spicket will put out more water (unless it was restricted by the hose/(ram) in the first place (it is not is most cases).


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> None.  That's the point - that much texture processing requires a lot of gpu power too - not just memory.  They talk about the 290X 4GB being great for 4K monitor gaming but that's a myth.  You ideally need 2 cards in crossfire for that to work smoothly.  If you want to see more than 2 Gb of Vram usage being utilised effectively you'll need a high end card (like yours at the lowest end up to 290, 290X and 780, 780Ti and Titan).


I see your point here but really, the card has no problem utilizing all of it's ram and quickly. It's 512bit busand all. Have you seen benchmarks that don't budge  much until the memory speed is raised with this card on 4k?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> I see your point here but really, the card has no problem utilizing all of it's ram and quickly. It's 512bit busand all. Have you seen benchmarks that don't budge  much until the memory speed is raised with this card on 4k?



Not saying it doesn't use the memory but the majority of reviews show that a _single_ card at 4K struggles to get 'decent' framerates.  Ideally, you'd need 2 x 290 (non x) for the best price/performance results.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 2, 2014)

I feel that 2GB of vram is marginal at best. I would go with a 3 or 4GB GPU for your resolution.


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Coil whine is no doubt from the gpu, it's not a problem, just an irritation. Not really worth the hassle of rmaing to buy a second rated gpu for gsync...



If i would buy a nvidia gpu and ad another gpu (nvidia) later, it would be  to run them in sli for performance boost, now a used gtx 770 is a bit expensive, but 1x600 and a second one later wouldn't be as expensive as a gtx 770 and would give me performance above gtx 680/770


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> Not saying it doesn't use the memory but the majority of reviews show that a _single_ card at 4K struggles to get 'decent' framerates.  Ideally, you'd need 2 x 290 (non x) for the best price/performance results.


Fps and using 'more than 2gb of ram effectively' are two different.things... You moved goalposts, lol!


----------



## buildzoid (Jan 2, 2014)

The price of an R9 280X is lower than the price of a pair of GTX 660s or a single GTX 770 and it has more VRAM and handles higher resolutions better. Nvidia cards lose FPS faster as resolution increases than AMD cards so an R9 280X will beat the GTX 770 in FPS in resolutions greater than 1920x1080. Also 3GB VRAM is better than 2GB. The only Nvidia card that would really be an upgrade is the GTX 780 but that isn't better than a custom cooler R9 290 which is still cheaper(round the price of a single GTX 770)


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> The price of an R9 280X is lower than the price of a pair of GTX 660s or a single GTX 770 and it has more VRAM and handles higher resolutions better. Nvidia cards lose FPS faster as resolution increases than AMD cards so an R9 280X will beat the GTX 770 in FPS in resolutions greater than 1920x1080. Also 3GB VRAM is better than 2GB. The only Nvidia card that would really be an upgrade is the GTX 780 but that isn't better than a custom cooler R9 290 which is still cheaper(round the price of a single GTX 770)



Not 2xused 660 compared to 1 new R9 280X and a R9 280X dosnt work with g sync if i in the future will upgrade to g sync


----------



## THE_EGG (Jan 2, 2014)

I'd be a bit hesitant about buying a 2gb gpu now for that resolution. I'd go for a 3gb or 4gb gpu. I'd go for a r9 290 (non-x) or a gtx 780 (non-ti).  If it is too expensive just save up a little longer. Nothing worse than having buyer's regret.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 2, 2014)

I'm of the opinion that if 2GB is enough for 2560x1600, it should be plenty for 2560x1080.  SLI 2GB 760s still match Titan and a 290 in BF4.  And actually, SLI 760's actually perform better relatively at 2560x1600 than they do at 1920x1080.

At 1920x1080, SLI 2GB 760s end up slower than a 780.

At 2560x1600, SLI 2GB 760s end up faster than a 780, and matches Titan/290.

You'd think the opposite would be true if memory was an issue.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Fps and using 'more than 2gb of ram effectively' are two different.things... You moved goalposts, lol!



Maybe my post wasn't clear, when i referenced the 4K monitor that was what my post related to.  We know we'll see 3GB+ in 4K situations with ease (on applicable hardware) but my point was that on 4K a single card is pretty pants anyway - yes you'll get lots of Vram usage but the gpu itself will not be able to churn out high frame rates.  I know if you strap 4gb on a GTX 760 it's not going to cut it at 4K, even though it may well see high Vram usage.  Know what I mean?  I have the reverse, a powerful GPU with way to much memory for practical use.

Anyway, I only move goalposts in technical ignorance, not to defraud a topic


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

@ Newtekie - It has been said repeatedly in this thread already, but what is one more time. 

The problems with running out of vRAM tend NOT to manifest itself in a FPS dip. You see/feel 'hitching' when the GPU pages out from the HDD or wherever it comes from. The gaming experience on cards that frequently have to page out drops dramatically in that type of situation. I have experienced this behavior first hand in reviews when I test at 1440p and 2GB cards. I really do not see a FPS dip, but the hitching can be pretty bad in some cases. 

Like the frame time thing, its not all about FPS.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 2, 2014)

Yeah, you keep saying it, but I've never experienced anything like what you've described.  And they page out to the system memory, not the HDD.  I've maxed BF4 out on a GTX690 and never experienced a single stutter.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

I saw it all too frequently... just don't get hung up on FPS as, again, it doesn't show the entire picture.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jan 2, 2014)

Not only that, I thought the BF series optimized visuals based on the amount of available vram?

It's a preference of image quality sometimes as well. Do we need physx effects and upwards of 8xAA in games at certain resolutions? No we don't need them but I certainly want to be able to add them without feeling restricted by my cards vram capabilities.

Eye candy is one of the reasons I game on Pc, not to mention better frame rates and modding possibilities.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

...PACMAN... said:


> Not only that, I thought the BF series optimized visuals based on the amount of available vram?
> 
> It's a preference of image quality sometimes as well. Do we need physx effects and upwards of 8xAA in games at certain resolutions? No we don't need them but I certainly want to be able to add them without feeling restricted by my cards vram capabilities.
> 
> Eye candy is one of the reasons I game on Pc, not to mention better frame rates and modding possibilities.


That was an unproven rumor. It is clear that vRAM scaled in BF3, but nobody did a side by side of IQ proving it. The reason why vram use was different has not seemed to have been pinned down. It was weird. with a 2GB card, I would sit around 1.7/1.8GB used, then a 3GB card I hit 2.5GB... no (proven) rhyme or reason.

+1 on the rest.


----------



## Ralfies (Jan 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> @ Newtekie - It has been said repeatedly in this thread already, but what is one more time.
> 
> The problems with running out of vRAM tend NOT to manifest itself in a FPS dip. You see/feel 'hitching' when the GPU pages out from the HDD or wherever it comes from. The gaming experience on cards that frequently have to page out drops dramatically in that type of situation. I have experienced this behavior first hand in reviews when I test at 1440p and 2GB cards. I really do not see a FPS dip, but the hitching can be pretty bad in some cases.
> 
> Like the frame time thing, its not all about FPS.


I experience this too with my 670 at 1440p, but not in many games. Usually my 670 isn't powerful enough to use MSAA or other setting that eat up VRAM at this resolution. When I can maintain 60fps though it's very frustrating to constantly get hitches from running out of VRAM and have to turn settings down. If you're planning on going for sli at some point I would definitely recommend more than 2gb.


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

so someting like 2 midrange card like the gtx 660 with 3 gb vram is better then a gtx 770 with 2 gb vram?

I like asus but they only make gtx 760/770 in 2gb versions, so if i want cards from asus i wanna go for 2x midrange 3-4gb cards then a gtx 680/770 with 2gb vram?


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

If they made the 660 with 3GB, maybe. I do not think there is a 3GB version. That is reserved for 384but busses (or mixed memory architectures).

There are 760/770's in 4GB - http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=GTX 760 4GB&N=-1&isNodeId=1

I do not understand what you mean by the last part... Get 2x midrange cards and grab a 3rd high end? That makes no sense in almost every way, LOL! First, you cannot SLI unlike cards, meaning they need to be the same (GTX 770 for example). Second, adding a third card with less vram than your other two will then neuter your other two cards to 2GB of vram as well, effectively shooting yourself in the foot.

Honestly, this is not as hard as 34 posts seem to make it out to be. For your resolution there is no way I would get a 2GB card. For 1920x1080, sure. But for yours, no way. Same with 2560x1440... no way would I get a 2GB card there either.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> If they made the 660 with 3GB, maybe. I do not think there is a 3GB version. That is reserved for 384but busses (or mixed memory architectures).
> 
> There are 760/770's in 4GB - http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=GTX 760 4GB&N=-1&isNodeId=1
> 
> ...



Seriously, Im not even sure if he has read anything anyone has posted. I am pretty sure we have told him a 2GB card at that resolution is a no go (well somewhat. If he got 2 of them, it might be fine, but one would struggle), same with the same card with just 4GB on it.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 2, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Technically, I suppose that is right... But which is faster ram bandwidth wise... A 760 with it's ram at 1500mhz or a 770 with it's ram at 1500mhz (assuming they are both 256 bit cards of course)? Since they both have the same exact bandwidth it wouldnt be feeding the gpu any faster would it? So why would gpu power matter? It's like hooking up a firehose to your garden hose spicket and expecting it to put out more water. Just because the hose is bigger doesn't mean the spicket will put out more water (unless it was restricted by the hose/(ram) in the first place (it is not is most cases).



It depends on different shaders used in game - shaders generally read from different texture samplers and calculate vector based floating point arithmetic - typical workload is always combined between memory intensive operations and arithmetic. So if a shader code is more compute intensive than memory intensive, there will be performance difference between gtx 760 and gtx 770 even if memory bus is saturated.


----------



## erocker (Jan 2, 2014)

I've changed my mind. If you're running multiple monitors and want to throw money at G-Sync, don't cheap out on the cards. 

I also think that people are way overblowing 2gb's of vram for 2560x1080. It would work and at least half the time no tweaking will be necessary.

Bottom line. Get a GTX 780ti


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

so if i wanna go for asus it would be better to have 2 midrange cards with 3gb then a single gtx 680/770 with only 2gb vram?

there has been made 3gb versions of the gtx 660 and 660 ti, i only know asus makes the gtx 660 ti in a 3gb version, get one now and a second later (if deside to go back to nvidia) wouldn't cost me as much as one 680/770 does  (each time i buy one "midrange"gtx 600, mabye 2 used ones would be cheaper the a used gtx 680/770 2gb+ card)

The requirements for bf 4 also say recommended a hd 7870 or a gtx 660 3gb


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

erocker said:


> I've changed my mind. If you're running multiple monitors and want to throw money at G-Sync, don't cheap out on the cards.
> 
> I also think that people are way overblowing 2gb's of vram for 2560x1080. It would work and at least half the time no tweaking will be necessary.
> 
> Bottom line. Get a GTX 780ti



Why? g-sync menas you dont need a gtx 680/770780 to play games on a g-sync monitor as long as fps is 30 or better you won't se a difference (first time they showed g-syns they used a gtx 760)


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 2, 2014)

gasolin said:


> so if i wanna go for asus it would be better to have 2 midrange cards with 3gb then a single gtx 680/770 with only 2gb vram?
> 
> there has been made 3gb versions of the gtx 660 and 660 ti, i only know asus makes the gtx 660 ti in a 3gb version, get one now and a second later (if deside to go back to nvidia) wouldn't cost me as much as one 680/770 does  (each time i buy one "midrange"gtx 600, mabye 2 used ones would be cheaper the a used gtx 680/770 2gb+ card)
> 
> The requirements for bf 4 also say recommended a hd 7870 or a gtx 660 3gb



That's for it to be playable, but they don't mention, what resolution, or settings that's at though right? right.

Im not even sure why you are looking at the 660/ti.

Either get 2 760s, or 290/x, 780/ti and be done with it!



gasolin said:


> Why? g-sync menas you dont need a gtx 680/770780 to play games on a g-sync monitor as long as fps is 30 or better you won't se a difference (first time they showed g-syns they used a gtx 760)



You don't quite understand what G-Sync actually does do you?


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

Christ man... you really are not reading the thread are you? New to forums as well? Learn how to quote people properly please. And also stop multiple posting... jesus. As a helper, it gets exceeding annoying to see you repeat questions that have been answered within your own thread. 

Looks like there is a 660 3GB. I wouldn't use those because it is running on a 192 bit bus.

@ erocker - it may be fine now for some titles, but what about in a year? A proper card with the horsepower to push the res and the memory capacity and bandwidth will be helpful. If anything, 780. The Ti is a ripoff, even for that resolution. 290.... even a 7970 would be my choice over any 2GB card really.


----------



## gasolin (Jan 2, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> That's for it to be playable, but they don't mention, what resolution, or settings that's at though right? right.
> 
> Im not even sure why you are looking at the 660/ti.
> 
> Either get 2 760s, or 290/x, 780/ti and be done with it!


 
Asus only makes the gtx 660 ti in a 3 gb version (havn't seen any gtx 660 in 3gb made by asus) also if i where to go back to nvidia it would be cheaper to start with a used gtx 660/660 ti then a used gtx 680/770, could i afford atm a used gtx 770 i would just have bough a gtx 770 4gb without asking if 2 gb cards are good enough for 2560x1080 (new 4 gb gtx 760/770 i feel is alot more expensive then the 2 gb versions as well as the used ones i think is much cheaper with a 2gb card)


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 2, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Asus only makes the gtx 660 ti in a 3 gb version (havn't seen any gtx 660 in 3gb made by asus) also if i where to go back to nvidia it would be cheaper to start with a used gtx 660/660 ti then a used gtx 680/770, could i afford atm a used gtx 770 i would just have bough a gtx 770 4gb without asking if 2 gb cards are good enough for 2560x1080 (new 4 gb gtx 760/770 i feel is alot more expensive then the 2 gb versions as well as the used ones i think is much cheaper with a 2gb card)



Okay....I don't care. Buy whatever you want, because obviously nothing we are saying is getting through to you.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 2, 2014)

And for giggles, here is a 2GB version of the 660ti... man the OP is all over the map...


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121660

EDIT: That is a 660... I think its rubbing off on me... best to try to figure out how the FOOK to unsubscribe from a thread in this shitstorm framework...*talks to self - stay strong Earth, just stick to the classifieds*


----------



## gasolin (Jan 5, 2014)

Thanks for all the advice, have just ordered me a Gigabyte Gtx 770 oc 4gb


----------



## Vario (Jan 5, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Thanks for all the advice, have just ordered me a Gigabyte Gtx 770 oc 4gb


Dude you're really not gonna notice that big a difference with 1 more gb of ram if thats why you bought it.  As far as 770 vs 7970, 770 is a 680, both overclocked are pretty close so it probably is closer to a sidegrade  even if it gains you 10% at most.


----------



## Kaynar (Jan 5, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Minimum gpu for gsync is a gtx 660 so this (mabye a second one later) or a 670/760 is what i am looking for (used).



So basically the OP is looking to downgrade lol... a GTX770 would be a sidegrade and only a GTX780Ti with overclock would be a noticeable upgrade that would however cost tons....


----------



## gasolin (Jan 5, 2014)

Kaynar said:


> So basically the OP is looking to downgrade lol... a GTX770 would be a sidegrade and only a GTX780Ti with overclock would be a noticeable upgrade that would however cost tons....



Can we agree that a gtx 770 is faster then a gtx 680? (not by much but still faster) Read the scores of the hd 7970 i had and a gtx 680 (just before the comments) http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/Asus_680_7970 a gigabyte gtx 770 oc might go higher then the gtx 680 in my link, because of gpu boost 2.0 that enabled goes all the way up to the cards max temperature limited and could be at a  higher speed  because of 3 fans.

That means the card with gpu boost 2.0 that has the best cooler can reach the highest speed before reaching the temperature limit

Never wrote a i wanted a faster gpu, i wanted a nvida card so i can run g-sync if i upgrade to that, also thought noise from my gpu was a bit to high doing games.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX_770_WindForce_OC/27.html

Seems like TechPowerUp thinks a gtx 770 oc is faster then a hd 7970 ghz ed


----------



## gasolin (Jan 5, 2014)

Vario said:


> Dude you're really not gonna notice that big a difference with 1 more gb of ram if thats why you bought it.  As far as 770 vs 7970, 770 is a 680, both overclocked are pretty close so it probably is closer to a sidegrade  even if it gains you 10% at most.



Look what i wrote i#49

To make it short, wanted to be ready for g-sync, thought noise with my hd 7970 was a bit to high (know the fans are good, but most gtx cards are more silent then a amd card, just look at how silent a msi gtx gtx 760/770 gaming,asus gtx6570 dcuii,gigabyte gtx770 are or a ref R 290 vs ref gtx770)


----------



## Kaynar (Jan 5, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Can we agree that a gtx 770 is faster then a gtx 680? (not by much but still faster) Read the scores of the hd 7970 i had and a gtx 680



Sorry but 5-10% better performance for $500 dollar expense is a sidegrade. 10% better at 100FPS means 110FPS, 10% at 30FPS means 33FPS. WoW much difference so amaze...


----------



## gasolin (Jan 5, 2014)

Kaynar said:


> Sorry but 5-10% better performance for $500 dollar expense is a sidegrade. 10% better at 100FPS means 110FPS, 10% at 30FPS means 33FPS. WoW much difference so amaze...



Prices are difference her in denmark (alot) a gigabyte gtx 770 4gb on newegg costs the same as a  gigabyte gtx 760 4gb in denmark, to get a gigabyte gtx 770 4gb i payed in dollars, less then 250 extra (i don't need 2 gpu's)

A hd 7970 ghz ed is fast, a gtx 680 is faster then a hd 7970 and a gtx 770 is faster then the gtx 680


----------



## Vario (Jan 6, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Prices are difference her in denmark (alot) a gigabyte gtx 770 4gb on newegg costs the same as a  gigabyte gtx 760 4gb in denmark, to get a gigabyte gtx 770 4gb i payed in dollars, less then 250 extra (i don't need 2 gpu's)
> 
> A hd 7970 ghz ed is fast, a gtx 680 is faster then a hd 7970 and a gtx 770 is faster then the gtx 680


True.  What matters is your happy with it!  I have done pretty small improvement but expensive upgrades myself and its enhanced my enjoyment of it so do what makes you happy lol.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 6, 2014)

gasolin said:


> Thanks for all the advice, have just ordered me a Gigabyte Gtx 770 oc 4gb


 Looks like this thread is done then. Nice choice


----------

