Seriously disappointed with GTX 770

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by SystemsGO (1071 posts) -

Did I seriously pay nearly 400 dollars to be unable to max Assassin's Creed: Black Flag? and get on average 30 FPS on Splintercell Blacklist maxed, and Crysis 3 maxed? Surely, I'm being duped, right? No.....?

#2 Posted by FelipeInside (25289 posts) -

Depends what you call max.

Have you tried turning down some settings that don't make a big difference anyway, like AA to 4x and AF to 4x instead of crazy 16x?

I have a 680 and I ran them both fine.

#3 Posted by ShimmerMan (4438 posts) -

If you turn on every bell and whistle then you're just being a bit of an idiot. Some of these settings add minor graphical improvements but they tank the framerate by as much as 50-100%. And just because you bought a half decent video card doesn't mean you're at the top of the pecking order.

There's people sinking three, four or five times as much as you into multi GPU setups, three 780s, two or three titans etc. And a lot of the very top end settings which don't even do much are pretty much there to curb people who have these multi-gpu setup. Because otherwise they'd be running every game at 400FPS and wouldn't feel inclined to invest in multi-gpu ever again.

My recommendation is stop thinking you're a big baller because you bought a 770.. Start choosing realistic settings for the best performance and visuals.

#4 Edited by evildead6789 (7419 posts) -

What's your cpu, could be your cpu bottlenecking, and what resolution and aa level you play at?

#5 Posted by evildead6789 (7419 posts) -

@ShimmerMan: I wouldn't call a gtx 770 half decent lol , multiple gpu setups are for resolutions on multi screen setups.

#6 Posted by SystemsGO (1071 posts) -

If you turn on every bell and whistle then you're just being a bit of an idiot. Some of these settings add minor graphical improvements but they tank the framerate by as much as 50-100%. And just because you bought a half decent video card doesn't mean you're at the top of the pecking order.

There's people sinking three, four or five times as much as you into multi GPU setups, three 780s, two or three titans etc. And a lot of the very top end settings which don't even do much are pretty much there to curb people who have these multi-gpu setup. Because otherwise they'd be running every game at 400FPS and wouldn't feel inclined to invest in multi-gpu ever again.

My recommendation is stop thinking you're a big baller because you bought a 770.. Start choosing realistic settings for the best performance and visuals.

I too, have a recommendation for you. Stop being a prick. If I wanted to be a big baller, I most certainly have the cash flow, however, I find it unfistiable to spend that amount of cash on a game machine.

As to felipe, I had it entirely maxed on Assassin's Creed and found myself getting at times 9 FPS, minor the fact that I'm apparently a baller for having a 770, that's still ridiculous. I should in no way, at any point in time get 9 FPS, that's absurd! Now, with that being said. I turned AA down, took it form TXAA x4 (which was more optimized than MSAAX4). Then, even took it to SMAA. Still relatively no different. Turned Physx down from high to normal, no different. Reduced the envrionmental detail, still, no difference. What were your settings for Assassin's Creed, if you don't mind my asking? Crysis 3 ran much better than this game imo.

#7 Posted by SystemsGO (1071 posts) -

@evildead6789: I have a 2500k OCed to 4.0 ghz. I'm only running at 1920x1080, nothing special.

#8 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15910 posts) -

PC game developers just can't win. PC gamers complain games don't stress their cards. If a game does stress a card, then they complain they can't run the game well enough.

#9 Edited by SystemsGO (1071 posts) -

PC game developers just can't win. PC gamers complain games don't stress their cards. If a game does stress a card, then they complain they can't run the game well enough.

Well, you know.. There is a give and take with that. Sure, we whine and moan that a game can't stress our card. HOWEVER, a game must only be able to stress our card if the graphical fidelity justifies the strain. If a game looks mediocre at best, yet still manages to strain your GPU then that's no bueno, isn't it?

I see what you're doing though. You're attempting to tell me that I'm complaining, and that I'm complaining for no reason, and that I have typical PC gamer complaints, right? No.. Not really. When Crysis 3 made my 770 struggle, it was justified. When Assassin's Creed Black Flag does, and Splintercell Blacklist does, it's really not that justified imo.

It seems to me that "Crippling" your PC has become painfully more important than justifying why your PC has become crippled. Sure, we can deliver shotty graphics, and yield your frames to 24 anyway, to give you the placebo effect that your PC is really working, and for a legitimate reason, although your eyes fail to see it. <<<<< Logic, where?

Want to cripple my PC? Give me a reason. Assassin's Creed 3 doesn't, so sorry, but I don't need your egotistical "PC Gamer cries" responses. I spent $400.00 on a GPU, to get marginally(if at all) better graphics than a shotty console, and only get 9 FPS? You've got to be kidding me.

#10 Posted by DasBrain56 (14 posts) -

@SystemsGO: Blag Flag really isn't optimized well for the pc it seems, I haven't played it since November but I was able to get 60fps with my GTX 770 by turning off v-sync. Its just the game, not your card.

#11 Posted by Mcspanky37 (1695 posts) -

Sounds like your PC is loaded with viruses or you have AA up too high. Or everything else in your computer is garbage. My GTX 670 maxes it (sans max AA) just perfectly...

#12 Edited by SystemsGO (1071 posts) -

@Mcspanky37:

You sir, are lying.

My computer is good. I have a GTX 770, Intel 2500k OCed to 4.0 GHZ, 8 GB of viper extreme ram at 1600 ghz, a samsung 840 pro SSD, 0 viruses.

#13 Edited by SystemsGO (1071 posts) -
#14 Posted by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

I see what you're doing though. You're attempting to tell me that I'm complaining, and that I'm complaining for no reason, and that I have typical PC gamer complaints, right? No.. Not really. When Crysis 3 made my 770 struggle, it was justified. When Assassin's Creed Black Flag does, and Splintercell Blacklist does, it's really not that justified imo.

Could it be that Ubisoft does a shit job of optimizing PC ports? Couldn't be...

#15 Edited by ShimmerMan (4438 posts) -

@SystemsGO said:

@ShimmerMan said:

If you turn on every bell and whistle then you're just being a bit of an idiot. Some of these settings add minor graphical improvements but they tank the framerate by as much as 50-100%. And just because you bought a half decent video card doesn't mean you're at the top of the pecking order.

There's people sinking three, four or five times as much as you into multi GPU setups, three 780s, two or three titans etc. And a lot of the very top end settings which don't even do much are pretty much there to curb people who have these multi-gpu setup. Because otherwise they'd be running every game at 400FPS and wouldn't feel inclined to invest in multi-gpu ever again.

My recommendation is stop thinking you're a big baller because you bought a 770.. Start choosing realistic settings for the best performance and visuals.

I too, have a recommendation for you. Stop being a prick.

I'm not being a prick, I'm telling you how it is. I've owned a 680GTX for the last two years now. I never bought it thinking I would run every game at 8xTXAA full ambient occulsion everything maxed etc.. At one point I was running bog old Skyrim with some ENB at 25FPS. If you want to run every game with all the settings cranked up at 60fps+ you will have to spend more than $400, end of story.

#16 Posted by wis3boi (31102 posts) -

@SystemsGO said:

@ShimmerMan said:

If you turn on every bell and whistle then you're just being a bit of an idiot. Some of these settings add minor graphical improvements but they tank the framerate by as much as 50-100%. And just because you bought a half decent video card doesn't mean you're at the top of the pecking order.

There's people sinking three, four or five times as much as you into multi GPU setups, three 780s, two or three titans etc. And a lot of the very top end settings which don't even do much are pretty much there to curb people who have these multi-gpu setup. Because otherwise they'd be running every game at 400FPS and wouldn't feel inclined to invest in multi-gpu ever again.

My recommendation is stop thinking you're a big baller because you bought a 770.. Start choosing realistic settings for the best performance and visuals.

I too, have a recommendation for you. Stop being a prick.

I'm not being a prick, I'm telling you how it is. I've owned a 680GTX for the last two years now. I never bought it thinking I would run every game at 8xTXAA full ambient occulsion everything maxed etc.. At one point I was running bog old Skyrim with some ENB at 25FPS. If you want to run every game with all the settings cranked up at 60fps+ you will have to spend more than $400, end of story.

Adding in: The AC series is never a good place to test your hardware out on, ubi does the worst ports on the planet. AC3 especially was a complete mess and still is to this day

#17 Posted by cyloninside (476 posts) -

@Mcspanky37:

You sir, are lying.

My computer is good. I have a GTX 770, Intel 2500k OCed to 4.0 GHZ, 8 GB of viper extreme ram at 1600 ghz, a samsung 840 pro SSD, 0 viruses.

... i have the exact same CPU OCed to 4.2, and a gtx 570... and i get like 25-40fps on BF4 ultra settings... so there is definitely something messed up with your PC.

#18 Posted by SystemsGO (1071 posts) -

@cyloninside: I don't care what you get on BF4, this isn't BF4, it's AC Black Flag. Totally different games, sir.

Either way, I turned off Vsync, and all is well. Notice if I turned PhsyX from normal to high I lost about 10-15 FPS. So, without I'm sure I would get 60+ as other users stated.

There is nothing wrong with my PC.

#19 Posted by KHAndAnime (13392 posts) -

@SystemsGO said:

@Mcspanky37:

You sir, are lying.

My computer is good. I have a GTX 770, Intel 2500k OCed to 4.0 GHZ, 8 GB of viper extreme ram at 1600 ghz, a samsung 840 pro SSD, 0 viruses.

... i have the exact same CPU OCed to 4.2, and a gtx 570... and i get like 25-40fps on BF4 ultra settings... so there is definitely something messed up with your PC.

Definitely sounds that way. Should be getting ~50 FPS on Crysis 3 near max settings with AA enabled. Use this benchmark to give you an idea of where a 770 should be performing - doesn't sound like your 770 is up to scratch.

#20 Edited by FelipeInside (25289 posts) -

@SystemsGO said:

As to felipe, I had it entirely maxed on Assassin's Creed and found myself getting at times 9 FPS, minor the fact that I'm apparently a baller for having a 770, that's still ridiculous. I should in no way, at any point in time get 9 FPS, that's absurd! Now, with that being said. I turned AA down, took it form TXAA x4 (which was more optimized than MSAAX4). Then, even took it to SMAA. Still relatively no different. Turned Physx down from high to normal, no different. Reduced the envrionmental detail, still, no difference. What were your settings for Assassin's Creed, if you don't mind my asking? Crysis 3 ran much better than this game imo.

Something wrong there then.

As for my settings: When I play games I just go into options, put my resolution on, turn down AA and AF to 2x or 4x, and then hit play (maybe shadows down if I see the game struggling).

EDIT: I see the problem was Vsync. Glad you fixed it. I should have mentioned that, I never use Vsync unless the tearing is so bad it bothers me.

#21 Posted by Marfoo (5993 posts) -

My friend just bought a GTX 770. He paired it with his i5 2500k, he runs AC Black Flag just fine all settings turned up, smooth as butter. Something is up with your system.

#22 Posted by MBirdy88 (7645 posts) -

@SystemsGO: Assassins Creed Black Flag is poorly optimized. everyone who has played it knows this. so how does that make your card a disappointment? Crysis 3 should be fine.

why do you even have 4x AA ... why not .... 2 .... i mean, its barely needed these days.

#23 Edited by cyloninside (476 posts) -

@cyloninside:

I don't care what you get on BF4, this isn't BF4, it's AC Black Flag. Totally different games, sir.

Either way, I turned off Vsync, and all is well. Notice if I turned PhsyX from normal to high I lost about 10-15 FPS. So, without I'm sure I would get 60+ as other users stated.

There is nothing wrong with my PC.

rofl... wow.

FYI BF4 on ultra is WAAAAY more demanding than AC4....that was my point.... your PC is fucked.

#24 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -

AC4 PhysX is a terrible implementation. It tanks on a 780, turn it off.

#25 Posted by FelipeInside (25289 posts) -

@SystemsGO said:

@cyloninside:

I don't care what you get on BF4, this isn't BF4, it's AC Black Flag. Totally different games, sir.

Either way, I turned off Vsync, and all is well. Notice if I turned PhsyX from normal to high I lost about 10-15 FPS. So, without I'm sure I would get 60+ as other users stated.

There is nothing wrong with my PC.

rofl... wow.

FYI BF4 on ultra is WAAAAY more demanding than AC4....that was my point.... your PC is fucked.

Ummm....you would be pretty surprised actually.

AC4 maxed on busy levels like the sea battles is a pretty demanding game.

I have no idea which one taxes the video card more but it's not WAAAAY more demanding like you say. I would say very similar in requirements.

#26 Edited by Mortalmaster123 (1226 posts) -

Kind of unfortunate, i have a r9 280x pulling 80-120 fps on battlefield 4 on ultra yet i get 20ish fps on ac4. From what ive researched, ac games are very poorly optimized for pc users, and it kind of sucks cause i was quite excited to play yet now I cant. I do have vsync off, atleast i turned it off in the documents and nothing.

Also shall I add recommended gpus are amd radeon 5850 or gtx 470......

If anyone with an amd has found a way to get this game to run smooth please share insight.

#27 Edited by rogelio22 (2342 posts) -

Could be alotve things messing with ur pc.... I also have i52500k, 8gb ram and evga770. The latest drvrs messed up my games so I went back to older drvrs... then before that I had msi afterburner messing with my gpu clocks cause I had an old ver. After I deleted it and installed new ver. Clocks went back to normal and alll is smooth now.. and yea asscreed games are always a mess on pc. I bought brotherhood, revelations and ac3 and had tinker with settings alot to get them to work right! Its why I saved myself the headache this time and bought ac4 for ps4.

#28 Posted by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

Thank consoles and their crappy ports.

#29 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15910 posts) -

@SystemsGO: Fair enough. My bad.

Just curious though. Does your card approach these figures with similar settings (albeit at 1080p)?

One thing I learned through the years is that simply maxing out a game doesn't necessarily yield the best image quality. An example is Crysis. Some mods that sharpen the image actually have one or two individual detail settings at Low instead of Very High.

#30 Posted by Mortalmaster123 (1226 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto: it says the min and max is 49and 55 with a 7970, which is almost identical to a 280x yet i cant pull over 30 fps.

#31 Posted by PredatorRules (7354 posts) -

Did I seriously pay nearly 400 dollars to be unable to max Assassin's Creed: Black Flag? and get on average 30 FPS on Splintercell Blacklist maxed, and Crysis 3 maxed? Surely, I'm being duped, right? No.....?

What is your CPU? also turning off V-Sync helps a lot IMO, some DX11 are not well placed due to bad optimization.

@vfibsux said:

Thank consoles and their crappy ports.

Most probably since Crysis 3 running fine and so do black list.

#32 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15910 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto: it says the min and max is 49and 55 with a 7970, which is almost identical to a 280x yet i cant pull over 30 fps.

If the hardware is similar, that leaves the driver. Perhaps the testers have newer/better drivers.

I'm watching threads like this because I'm also planning to upgrade my video card pretty soon.

#33 Posted by jcknapier711 (380 posts) -

Quite honestly, I think it's all about tweaking the 3D settings properly. I have a GTX260, I know I can't max much of anything besides 5+ year old games, but I can get most games looking *nearly* as good as max.

Yes, it's annoying you spend $$$$ and can't max the game. But if you had looked at benchmarks you would have been more realistic in your expectations. This is why I refuse to spend more than 250$ on a GPU. To me, they're just not worth more money.

#34 Edited by 560ti (154 posts) -

@ShimmerMan said:

Some of these settings add minor graphical improvements but they tank the framerate by as much as 50-100%.

This is 100% correct and is exactly why I HATE the term "max settings"..... (if you can get 90-95% of the eyecandy with twice the frames as 100% then screw that extra 5-10%).

Not only that but Splinter Cell and Assassin Creed are two of the top 5 worse port jobs of 2013...... (there not the games you want to use to justify/benchmark hardware).

#35 Posted by AdamPA1006 (6417 posts) -

Should have waited for the 290 to get back to $400 dog......

#36 Posted by cyloninside (476 posts) -

@cyloninside said:

@SystemsGO said:

@cyloninside:

I don't care what you get on BF4, this isn't BF4, it's AC Black Flag. Totally different games, sir.

Either way, I turned off Vsync, and all is well. Notice if I turned PhsyX from normal to high I lost about 10-15 FPS. So, without I'm sure I would get 60+ as other users stated.

There is nothing wrong with my PC.

rofl... wow.

FYI BF4 on ultra is WAAAAY more demanding than AC4....that was my point.... your PC is fucked.

Ummm....you would be pretty surprised actually.

AC4 maxed on busy levels like the sea battles is a pretty demanding game.

I have no idea which one taxes the video card more but it's not WAAAAY more demanding like you say. I would say very similar in requirements.

not even close to as demanding.... BF4 always has more going on... and a much higher level of fidelity.

#37 Edited by 04dcarraher (19216 posts) -

@AdamPA1006 said:

Should have waited for the 290 to get back to $400 dog......

wouldn't have done any good AC4 and SC:BL has crap cpu coding. and Crysis 3 is demanding anuways

The Ubi games only allocates two cores so gpu is left starving for data.

#38 Posted by FelipeInside (25289 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

Ummm....you would be pretty surprised actually.

AC4 maxed on busy levels like the sea battles is a pretty demanding game.

I have no idea which one taxes the video card more but it's not WAAAAY more demanding like you say. I would say very similar in requirements.

not even close to as demanding.... BF4 always has more going on... and a much higher level of fidelity.

Have you played both games?

#39 Edited by cyloninside (476 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@cyloninside said:

@FelipeInside said:

Ummm....you would be pretty surprised actually.

AC4 maxed on busy levels like the sea battles is a pretty demanding game.

I have no idea which one taxes the video card more but it's not WAAAAY more demanding like you say. I would say very similar in requirements.

not even close to as demanding.... BF4 always has more going on... and a much higher level of fidelity.

Have you played both games?

yes, absolutely. there is no question that BF4 on ultra settings is far and away the higher fidelity game....

certain scenes in BF4 on ultra approach photorealism... AC4 cant even come close.

AC4 PC Max settings:

BF4 PC Ultra Settings:

higher polygon models... higher resolution textures... better lighting... better shaders...

im really not sure how this is even a conversation.

#40 Posted by FelipeInside (25289 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@cyloninside said:

@FelipeInside said:

Ummm....you would be pretty surprised actually.

AC4 maxed on busy levels like the sea battles is a pretty demanding game.

I have no idea which one taxes the video card more but it's not WAAAAY more demanding like you say. I would say very similar in requirements.

not even close to as demanding.... BF4 always has more going on... and a much higher level of fidelity.

Have you played both games?

yes, absolutely. there is no question that BF4 on ultra settings is far and away the higher fidelity game....

certain scenes in BF4 on ultra approach photorealism... AC4 cant even come close.

AC4 PC Max settings:

BF4 PC Ultra Settings:

higher polygon models... higher resolution textures... better lighting... better shaders...

im really not sure how this is even a conversation.

I never talked about realism or fidelity, I'm just talking about how much it maxes your system.

The sea battles and other parts of AC4 get really heavy sometimes and therefore the graphics card gets a workout.

#41 Posted by AdamPA1006 (6417 posts) -

@AdamPA1006 said:

Should have waited for the 290 to get back to $400 dog......

wouldn't have done any good AC4 and SC:BL has crap cpu coding. and Crysis 3 is demanding anuways

The Ubi games only allocates two cores so gpu is left starving for data.

Hmm. I consider "optimization" as "how good a game looks, vs how well it runs". I wanted to get AC4 mainly to explore and roam around the world, but hearing about the bad optimization I will probably stay away.

#42 Edited by darksusperia (6899 posts) -

you guys are aware of the framerate bug yes?

it will lock itself to 30fps.

Ctl+alt+del out of the game, click the cancel button, then alt+tab back in.

DO NOT alt+tab out of the game or you will need to repeat the above to get the framerate to unlock again.

#43 Posted by Postmortem123 (7635 posts) -

AC3 ran like crap on my 780 and 7990 too, so I'm not surprised that you're having a bad time with AC4.

#44 Posted by demi0227_basic (881 posts) -

770 is last gen tech...still great performance. Compare what you see to old or new consoles...your' epeen is still big man...don't doubt yourself.

#45 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

770 is last gen tech...still great performance. Compare what you see to old or new consoles...your' epeen is still big man...don't doubt yourself.

770 is last gen? hows that? its one of the latest cards out!

#46 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

@SystemsGO said:

@cyloninside:

I don't care what you get on BF4, this isn't BF4, it's AC Black Flag. Totally different games, sir.

Either way, I turned off Vsync, and all is well. Notice if I turned PhsyX from normal to high I lost about 10-15 FPS. So, without I'm sure I would get 60+ as other users stated.

There is nothing wrong with my PC.

Sir.. you are a noob. no offense

#47 Edited by Daious (1112 posts) -

You should have done more research on the 770 then but you should get higher FPS then that.

Also 400 dollars for a 770? They are chilling in the 300 range dipping to the 280s.

AC black flag is horribly optimized though.

#48 Posted by Daious (1112 posts) -

@demi0227_basic said:

770 is last gen tech...still great performance. Compare what you see to old or new consoles...your' epeen is still big man...don't doubt yourself.

770 is last gen? hows that? its one of the latest cards out!

I think he is referring to it being a rebranded card using a GK104 architecture. Its still a very good card.

#49 Edited by demi0227_basic (881 posts) -

@daious said:
@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@demi0227_basic said:

770 is last gen tech...still great performance. Compare what you see to old or new consoles...your' epeen is still big man...don't doubt yourself.

770 is last gen? hows that? its one of the latest cards out!

I think he is referring to it being a rebranded card using a GK104 architecture. Its still a very good card.

This guy knows what he's talking about. A 770 is a rebranded 680. Again...last gen tech. 780's + Titan are newer gen.

#50 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

@daious said:
@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@demi0227_basic said:

770 is last gen tech...still great performance. Compare what you see to old or new consoles...your' epeen is still big man...don't doubt yourself.

770 is last gen? hows that? its one of the latest cards out!

I think he is referring to it being a rebranded card using a GK104 architecture. Its still a very good card.

This guy knows what he's talking about. A 770 is a rebranded 680. Again...last gen tech. 780's + Titan are newer gen.

Seriously? what a damn joke.