Platform »
@monetarydread: i'd think a 760 would be a tad to weak to crank around a 4 GB scene at a playable framerate though.
I would agree that a 770 would be a better card for future proofing, but a 760 is basically a re branded 670, which is not that far off from a GTX 680 in performance. I doubt the 760 / 670 is going to bottleneck the 4gb of vram because it is that powerful of a video card. Remember, games like Battlefield 4 are also designed around having a larger access to vram than Battlefield 3 or other current gen games.
Look at the recommended specs. GTX 660 or 7870 with 3GB vram. Since the 760 / 670 does not offer a 3gb option, only 2gb or 4gb options, then why not take advantage of the extra bandwidth available to you. This is especially true when you consider that the difference in price between the 2gb version and the 4gb version is $25 (my bad, its a $50 difference).
Edit: Also, Skyrim with texture packs + an ENB can easily go over 2gb of VRAM.
Edit 2: Ultimately, the 2gb vs 4gb decision depends on how long you will keep the card. If you are going to replace it in two years, the 2gb version should be fine. That said, we have a new generation of games coming out. That always means a spec bump that tends to offend a lot of PC gamers. I remember in 2007 / 2008 when all the games started recommending multi-core processors and catering to people with DX10 cards. Everyone cried at the fact that their highly-overclocked single cores and dual DX9 gpu's (that tech nerds said was all that was necessary) did not run games like they had hoped. Or back in 2003 / 2004 when min specs almost tripled overnight (thanks to Doom and Far Cry shipping with uncompressed textures and crazy lighting effects) and all of a sudden their gaming rigs that killed Battlefield were useless for anything else. Right now we are on the precipice of that same situation happening and I cannot, in good concious, recommend anything other than to wait a year or expect requirements to double.
Log in to comment