GTX 760 2GB or 4GB?

Okay. I have gotten everything ready because of all you awesome people on this forum :)

I am just wondering now which VRam 760 should I get?

I will be running on ONE 1080p Monitor but will also be going into modding games such as Skyrim with heavy graphic mods such as 2k Textures, W.A.T.E.R, Lush Grass and Plants and an ENB of my choice. I have heard that these use up ALOT of VRam. Just wanted to know do I need to worry about this or is it just some red herring?

I have also read on other forums that next gen games will probably use mor VRam so getting more VRam would be a good idea...

System at the moment --

GPU: MSI GTX 760 2GB or 4GB?

RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (1600MHz)

CPU: i5 4670K

Mobo: Gigabyte Z87 -HD3 

HDD: Seagate 2TB SATA III

Cooler: Hyper 212 Evo

Case: Zalman Z11 Plus

PSU: OCZ Fatal1ty 750w <--- If I got a 4GB card would I need to upgrade my PSU?

wait for amd GPU?

everything looks good there.

On the PSU question, you have more than enough juice so dont worry about it.  ( ram sizes make hardly any difference on power draw)

Yea wait and see how do the new AMD GPU's compare to the 760 or whatever it is in your price range, then get whats the best bang for buck 

What about a 7950?

wait for amd GPU?

 

everything looks good there.

On the PSU question, you have more than enough juice so dont worry about it.  ( ram sizes make hardly any difference on power draw)

 

 

Yea wait and see how do the new AMD GPU's compare to the 760 or whatever it is in your price range, then get whats the best bang for buck 

lunar1122

I don't really feel like the crippled GK104 GPU on the 760 has enough oomph to fully utilize 4GB of vram. My personal opinion is that paying the extra for the 4GB is a waste. Blicen

What about a 7950?

Postmortem123

Well you get more VRAM and more memory bandwidth. It's also cheaper (here at least).

Better overclocking too. Though it uses a bit more power and you'll miss out on advanced PhysX, if you care about that.

I remember reading somewhere that Battlefield 4 has a recommended requirement of 3GB of video memory, and if the cost isn't too high, you might as well go with the 4GB model.Stinger78

Well you get more VRAM and more memory bandwidth. It's also cheaper (here at least).

Better overclocking too. Though it uses a bit more power and you'll miss out on advanced PhysX, if you care about that.

Postmortem123

[QUOTE="Stinger78"]I remember reading somewhere that Battlefield 4 has a recommended requirement of 3GB of video memory, and if the cost isn't too high, you might as well go with the 4GB model.Prydaxify_1997

I mainly get what I can at the time - usually whatever seems like the best price/performance. It was 2 years ago when I got a 2GB GTX 560 card, and games like Crysis 3 and Metro 2033 put a lot of stress on it at 1920x1080, so I've been thinking of a similar upgrade to the 4GB 760.

This is partly because each new card I've gotten over the years has been a newer generation of parts along with having more VRAM available. Since 2006 I've gone from a ATI 128MB 9800 Pro to an Nvidia 512MB 7900 GTX, to an 8800 Ultra that had 768MB, to a GTS 250 with 1GB (which was just below what GTA IV required for highest details, to the 2GB 560. I also prefer having CUDA and Physx available, otherwise I'd have considered AMD more.

Edit:  Battlefield 4 recommended specs - http://www.joystiq.com/2013/09/10/battlefield-4-pc-requirements-revealed-time-to-gear-up/

[QUOTE="Postmortem123"]

Well you get more VRAM and more memory bandwidth. It's also cheaper (here at least).

Better overclocking too. Though it uses a bit more power and you'll miss out on advanced PhysX, if you care about that.

Prydaxify_1997

[QUOTE="Prydaxify_1997"][QUOTE="Postmortem123"]

Well you get more VRAM and more memory bandwidth. It's also cheaper (here at least).

Better overclocking too. Though it uses a bit more power and you'll miss out on advanced PhysX, if you care about that.

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Prydaxify_1997"] Yeah I do care about the PhysX ;P The GTX 760 is slightly better. The 4GB verdsion is £51 more but I guess it will drop once the new 9000 series are outAparthide

stock 760 is at 980mhz, many 760's you find are already clocked beyond 1ghz and the hawk is at 1.1 ghz many 760 can get to 1.2 ghz+.

^ Clock for clock the 7950 is only ~3% slower than a 7970 in games.

The 7950 is much better overclocker than the 760, too.

Depends on if you want to bother with that or not.

^ Clock for clock the 7950 is only ~3% slower than a 7970 in games.

The 7950 is much better overclocker than the 760, too.

Depends on if you want to bother with that or not.

Postmortem123

I guess I got lucky then, both my 7950s hit 1.2Ghz easily.

And I'm not sure the 760 would win on most games. Crysis 3 runs better on Nvidia so it's not a great example.

Plus when you start cranking the settings up the 7950 will do better.

I guess I got lucky then, both my 7950s hit 1.2Ghz easily.

And I'm not sure the 760 would win on most games. Crysis 3 runs better on Nvidia so it's not a great example.

Postmortem123

You got a good card , But Crysis 3 isnt bias, a 7970 ghz beat out a GTX 680 and nearly matched a 770 (basically a overclocked 680) by 2 fps. 7950 beat out the GTX 660ti, stock 7970 matched a GTX 670. Metro last light would be a bias game since a GTX 580 was only 1 fps behind a 7950 boost.04dcarraher

clock for clock the 7950 is faster than a 760, and most of the time the 7950 overclocks better. For skyrim especially the 7950 will be very useful with the bigger mem bandwidth and 3gb vram, alot of users here report really good results with the 7950/7970 and skyrim. Not to mention the 7950 is priced cheaper than a 760 atm makes it a better deal.

Physx isn't a big deal, none of the console manufacturers cared about it when they picked AMD graphics over nvidia, plus it can be run on the CPU with great results.

clock for clock the 7950 is faster than a 760, and most of the time the 7950 overclocks better. For skyrim especially the 7950 will be very useful with the bigger mem bandwidth and 3gb vram, alot of users here report really good results with the 7950/7970 and skyrim. Not to mention the 7950 is priced cheaper than a 760 atm makes it a better deal.

Physx isn't a big deal, none of the console manufacturers cared about it when they picked AMD graphics over nvidia, plus it can be run on the CPU with great results.

blaznwiipspman1

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference  at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference  at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

04dcarraher

Without mods maybe. OP wants to play with a lot. Regardless of which is 'better' (they're very close) The 3GB 7950 is cheaper than the 2GB 760.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference  at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

INF1DEL

Without mods maybe. OP wants to play with a lot. Regardless of which is 'better' (they're very close) The 3GB 7950 is cheaper than the 2GB 760.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

clock for clock the 7950 is faster than a 760, and most of the time the 7950 overclocks better. For skyrim especially the 7950 will be very useful with the bigger mem bandwidth and 3gb vram, alot of users here report really good results with the 7950/7970 and skyrim. Not to mention the 7950 is priced cheaper than a 760 atm makes it a better deal.

Physx isn't a big deal, none of the console manufacturers cared about it when they picked AMD graphics over nvidia, plus it can be run on the CPU with great results.

04dcarraher

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

ahh yes 04cadharrer, a big nvidiafanboy probably one of the biggest on this board. I remember when the geforce 460 gtx was competing with the 6850, and you would recommend the 460 gtx to anyone who asked, even though it was clocked much lower and performed worse than a 6850 at stock but overclocked better. Now the tables have turned and we can see your true face....

Sad when you can't accept the 7950 is a great deal, and you get so much card for the $$ out of it.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

clock for clock the 7950 is faster than a 760, and most of the time the 7950 overclocks better. For skyrim especially the 7950 will be very useful with the bigger mem bandwidth and 3gb vram, alot of users here report really good results with the 7950/7970 and skyrim. Not to mention the 7950 is priced cheaper than a 760 atm makes it a better deal.

Physx isn't a big deal, none of the console manufacturers cared about it when they picked AMD graphics over nvidia, plus it can be run on the CPU with great results.

blaznwiipspman1

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Nuts!  Better to wait for the next generation...that's a period.

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

ahh yes 04cadharrer, a big nvidiafanboy probably one of the biggest on this board. I remember when the geforce 460 gtx was competing with the 6850, and you would recommend the 460 gtx to anyone who asked, even though it was clocked much lower and performed worse than a 6850 at stock but overclocked better. Now the tables have turned and we can see your true face....

Sad when you can't accept the 7950 is a great deal, and you get so much card for the $$ out of it.

Nuts!   Just wait for the next generation.

I remember reading somewhere that Battlefield 4 has a recommended requirement of 3GB of video memory, and if the cost isn't too high, you might as well go with the 4GB model.Stinger78

I would take those BF4 system requirements with a big lump of salt.  They recommended a 7870, and then recommended 3GB of VRAM.  Obviously there is an issue with that.  

clock for clock the 7950 is faster than a 760, and most of the time the 7950 overclocks better. For skyrim especially the 7950 will be very useful with the bigger mem bandwidth and 3gb vram, alot of users here report really good results with the 7950/7970 and skyrim. Not to mention the 7950 is priced cheaper than a 760 atm makes it a better deal.

Physx isn't a big deal, none of the console manufacturers cared about it when they picked AMD graphics over nvidia, plus it can be run on the CPU with great results.

blaznwiipspman1

Anybody with half a brain knows better than to compare GPUs on a "clock for clock" basis.  

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

clock for clock the 7950 is faster than a 760, and most of the time the 7950 overclocks better. For skyrim especially the 7950 will be very useful with the bigger mem bandwidth and 3gb vram, alot of users here report really good results with the 7950/7970 and skyrim. Not to mention the 7950 is priced cheaper than a 760 atm makes it a better deal.

Physx isn't a big deal, none of the console manufacturers cared about it when they picked AMD graphics over nvidia, plus it can be run on the CPU with great results.

blaznwiipspman1

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

ahh yes 04cadharrer, a big nvidiafanboy probably one of the biggest on this board. I remember when the geforce 460 gtx was competing with the 6850, and you would recommend the 460 gtx to anyone who asked, even though it was clocked much lower and performed worse than a 6850 at stock but overclocked better. Now the tables have turned and we can see your true face....

Sad when you can't accept the 7950 is a great deal, and you get so much card for the $$ out of it.

You dont compare gpu's on a clock per clock basis.....

:lol: your so blind that you dont see me recommending AMD gpu's too :lol:

Also I hope you know that the 460 released months before the 6850 did and The 6850 and GTX 460 traded blows one game one had 3 fps more in another the other had 4 fps higher etc they were basically on par... and that time Nvidia had the upper hand when it came to drivers.... I recommend what the user wants as in budget, brand and other aspects. You blindly praise Intel and AMD just because your half baked ideas.

^^^^^

So what do you recommend if I was planning on playing Skyrim with the following mods? Skyrim HD - 2K Textures - AOF HD Tree LODs - Realistic Lighting Overhaul - WATER - Water And Terrain Enhancement - HiRes Autumn forest grass and green grass - AOF Detailed Mountains - Texture Pack Combiner - Static Mesh Improvement Mod Anyone answer. I got a bit lost with the argument. ;P

^^^^^

So what do you recommend if I was planning on playing Skyrim with the following mods? Skyrim HD - 2K Textures - AOF HD Tree LODs - Realistic Lighting Overhaul - WATER - Water And Terrain Enhancement - HiRes Autumn forest grass and green grass - AOF Detailed Mountains - Texture Pack Combiner - Static Mesh Improvement Mod Anyone answer. I got a bit lost with the argument. ;P

Prydaxify_1997

I have some of those mods installed on my gtx 560ti 1gb and the game runs smooth at 1080. Do you plan on overclocking? because that can be a main factor in your decision. We will continue as if your not.

Right now the performance ratio is 7950<760=7970(non ghz).

You can pick up a non ghz 7970 for as low as $280 with rebate.

If your budget is or under $210 get the 7950

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131458

if its $250 get the GTX 760 2gb

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130932

If its $300 its a toss up between the 7970 or 4gb 760.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125470

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131468

Best thing to do is overclock the card and the answer would be 7950, since you seem to want to play something demanding. 3gb of vram 384 bit, enough said. The tahiti's are conservatively clocked on the base side with lots of headroom just don't get something with a shitty cooler and your golden.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"] [QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

04dcarraher

ahh yes 04cadharrer, a big nvidiafanboy probably one of the biggest on this board. I remember when the geforce 460 gtx was competing with the 6850, and you would recommend the 460 gtx to anyone who asked, even though it was clocked much lower and performed worse than a 6850 at stock but overclocked better. Now the tables have turned and we can see your true face....

Sad when you can't accept the 7950 is a great deal, and you get so much card for the $$ out of it.

You dont compare gpu's on a clock per clock basis.....

:lol: your so blind that you dont see me recommending AMD gpu's too :lol:

Also I hope you know that the 460 released months before the 6850 did and The 6850 and GTX 460 traded blows one game one had 3 fps more in another the other had 4 fps higher etc they were basically on par... and that time Nvidia had the upper hand when it came to drivers.... I recommend what the user wants as in budget, brand and other aspects. You blindly praise Intel and AMD just because your half baked ideas.

Lol...yes you are a fanboy, most likely in denial :D

why not compare gpu's on a clock to clock ratio?  Its not like the difference in overclocking is that much between either the 7950 or 760, its just that the 7950 benefits so much more out of it, more efficient and better architecture.

The 460 was far ahead of the 6850, especially if you overclocked the 460, you could approach the performance level of a 6950.  That was one of the reasons I wasn't satisfied when I bought the 6950 to replace the 460, the slightly better performance didn't justify the extra costs IMO.  Though it is true that the 6950 oc'd like a beast as well.

The 7950 at its current price point is an absolute steal, and if it had the gtx badge on it, im pretty sure youd have no problems recommeding it to anyone who listened.

Anybody with half a brain knows better than to compare GPUs on a "clock for clock" basis.  hartsickdiscipl

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference  at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

04dcarraher

Nope.

Granted, they do order by minimum fps, though I think I prefer it that way.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

ahh yes 04cadharrer, a big nvidiafanboy probably one of the biggest on this board. I remember when the geforce 460 gtx was competing with the 6850, and you would recommend the 460 gtx to anyone who asked, even though it was clocked much lower and performed worse than a 6850 at stock but overclocked better. Now the tables have turned and we can see your true face....

Sad when you can't accept the 7950 is a great deal, and you get so much card for the $$ out of it.

blaznwiipspman1

You dont compare gpu's on a clock per clock basis.....

:lol: your so blind that you dont see me recommending AMD gpu's too :lol:

Also I hope you know that the 460 released months before the 6850 did and The 6850 and GTX 460 traded blows one game one had 3 fps more in another the other had 4 fps higher etc they were basically on par... and that time Nvidia had the upper hand when it came to drivers.... I recommend what the user wants as in budget, brand and other aspects. You blindly praise Intel and AMD just because your half baked ideas.

Lol...yes you are a fanboy, most likely in denial :D

why not compare gpu's on a clock to clock ratio?  Its not like the difference in overclocking is that much between either the 7950 or 760, its just that the 7950 benefits so much more out of it, more efficient and better architecture.

The 460 was far ahead of the 6850, especially if you overclocked the 460, you could approach the performance level of a 6950.  That was one of the reasons I wasn't satisfied when I bought the 6950 to replace the 460, the slightly better performance didn't justify the extra costs IMO.  Though it is true that the 6950 oc'd like a beast as well.

The 7950 at its current price point is an absolute steal, and if it had the gtx badge on it, im pretty sure youd have no problems recommeding it to anyone who listened.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Anybody with half a brain knows better than to compare GPUs on a "clock for clock" basis.  Postmortem123

You dont compare gpu's clock per clock because the differences between them as in shader processor counts, ROP counts, bus width, etc. too many variables

With cpu's all you have is L2/L3 cache, small count of cores alot fewer variables.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

huh?

Skyrim is your example?

GTX 580 1.5 gb gets virtually the same performance as a 3gb 7950 at 2560x1600 with x4 AA aka 1 fps difference .

Then 7950<760<760 hawk=670<680=7970<770<7970ghz

Between the 760 hawk and 7970ghz its a whole 8 fps difference  at 2560x1600 x4 AA

at 1080 all those gpu's are virtually the same.

Postmortem123

Nope.

Granted, they do order by minimum fps, though I think I prefer it that way.

I was using 2560x1600 x4 AA no needs 8x AA

really? one fps at 2560x1600 x8 AA for minimum, but gets higher average. plus that is at stock to begin with.

I was using 2560x1600 x4 AA no needs 8x AA

really? one fps at 2560x1600 x8 AA for minimum, but gets higher average. plus that is at stock to begin with.

04dcarraher

It's a 760 @ 1110MMhz(stock) vs a 7950 @ 950Mhz. I'd go with the one with the higher VRAM and more overclocking headroom/unlocked voltage, but that's just me.

Though I'd get a 670 over the 760 anyway.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]I was using 2560x1600 x4 AA no needs 8x AA

really? one fps at 2560x1600 x8 AA for minimum, but gets higher average. plus that is at stock to begin with.

Postmortem123

It's a 760 @ 1110MMhz(stock) vs a 7950 @ 950Mhz. I'd go with the one with the higher VRAM and more overclocking headroom/unlocked voltage, but that's just me.

Though I'd get a 670 over the 760 anyway.

lol I think you misread

with bit tech results at 1080 a whole 3 fps min less but 760 gets 5 higher average.
Then no its not a 1110 mhz 760 they are using a stock 980mhz that boosts to 1033 ghz and the 7950 used was standard boost edition 925mhz When they overclocked the 760 its 1130 mhz and it surpassed the GTX 670 and kicks the heels of the GTX 680. 

Why do you think the 7950 has a higher OC headroom? the average user can only get a 1ghz to 1.1 ghz,  that is only 200-300mhz  gain. While the 760 can be overclocked also between 200-300mhz.

The priice to performance ratio the 7950 is a great card but no matter how you try to spin it the 760 is faster overall.

huh?
their test setup
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 2GB (980Mhz, boosting to 1,033MHz, 6GHz memory) (Launch Driver - GeForce 320.39 beta)
AMD Radeon HD 7950 3GB with Boost (875MHz-925MHz GPU, 5GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)04dcarraher

Though honestly this is all a waste of time, nobody would be able to tell the difference between the cards when actually gaming.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]huh?
their test setup
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 2GB (980Mhz, boosting to 1,033MHz, 6GHz memory) (Launch Driver - GeForce 320.39 beta)
AMD Radeon HD 7950 3GB with Boost (875MHz-925MHz GPU, 5GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)Postmortem123

Test System

• Intel Core i5 3570K (operating at 4.2GHz 42 x 100MHz)
• Asus Maximus V Extreme motherboard
• 2 x 4GB Corsair 2,400MHz DDR3 memory
• Lepa G1600 1600W PSU
• Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
• Samsung SSD 830 256GB SSD

AMD graphics cards

• AMD Radeon HD 7990 6GB (1,000MHz GPU, 6GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.5 beta)
• AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB GHz Edition (1,000-1,050MHz, 6GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)
• AMD Radeon HD 7950 3GB with Boost (875MHz-925MHz GPU, 5GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)
• AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB (1,000MHz GPU, 4.8GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)
• AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB (860MHz GPU, 4.8GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)
• AMD Radeon HD 7790 1GB (1,000MHz GPU, 6GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)
• AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB (1,000MHz GPU, 4.5GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)
• AMD Radeon HD 7750 1GB (825MHz GPU, 4.5GHz memory) (Catalyst 13.4 WHQL)

Nvidia graphics cards

• Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 2GB (980Mhz, boosting to 1,033MHz, 6GHz memory) (Launch Driver - GeForce 320.39 beta)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 2GB (1,046Mhz, boosting to 1,085MHz, 7GHz memory) (Launch Driver - GeForce 320.20 beta)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 3GB (836Mhz, boosting to 876MHz, 6GHz memory) (Launch Driver - GeForce 320.20 beta)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan 6GB (836Mhz, boosting to 876MHz, 6GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 690 4GB (915MHz, boosting to 1,084MHz, 6GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 2GB (1,006MHz, boosting to 1,110MHz, 6GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 2GB (915MHz, boosting to 1,084MHz, 6GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)
  Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB (980MHz GPU boosting to 1,033MHz, 6GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB (980MHz GPU boosting to 1,033MHz, 6GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti 1GB (925MHz GPU, 5.4GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)
• Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 1GB (1,058 MHz GPU, 5GHz memory) (GeForce 314.22 WHQL)

Then all you need to do is look around many overclocking on the 760 range from 1150-1280 mhz around 200-300mhz

That just seems very strange to me. My 680 boosts to 50Mhz higher than my Boost Clock, and Anandtech's and Tomshardware's reference 760's ran at over 1.1Ghz at stock. 

Anyways, here's Linus's review of it.

That just seems very strange to me. My 680 boosts to 50Mhz higher than my Boost Clock, and Anandtech's and Tomshardware's reference 760's ran at over 1.1Ghz at stock. 

Postmortem123

What do you make of Linus' review?

inb4 AMD fanboy.

Alright. Thanks to everyone. 

I am leaning towards the MSI GTX760 2GB... also I am not gettong it right now so it'll be probably be after the 9000 series are out. If those are to my liking then I may go for one of those IF the price isn't too god damn expensive :)

Thanks again.