MSI GeForce 2GB GTX 770 Twin Frozr OC £209.99 with Watch_Dogs @ dabs.com - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Use the current HEAT10 code for £10 off orders over £199 to get the card for this price (reduced from £219.99). Decent price although you may want to hold of for a bit since the gtx 800 cards are supposedly coming out within a few months. Free Delivery.

Includes free Watch_Dogs
More From Dabs:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
ad111 Avatar
2y, 4m agoFound 2 years, 4 months ago
Options

All Comments

(48) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
When they drop below £200, then it's time to buy!
#2
smizzlopi
When they drop below £200, then it's time to buy!
The cheaper the better! Shouldn't be too long now though :D
#3
Damn soo tempting!!
Bundling watch dogs is a little sweetener too. Has there been a patch or 2 since release as I'd read WD's had issues at release?
#4
First time builder here, is there any advantages in paying extra for the Asus or Gigabyte equivalent GTX 770 over MSI? Do MSI cards generally perform well and last?
#5
MSI are one of the decent makes. Also have a 3 year warranty in the uk. I have the equivalent older 670 card to this. It runs very quiet and cool. It did die after 2 years and MSI replaced it no worries - only cost to me was £17.00 p&p to send it to them tracked in the Netherlands. Got a brand new one back.
#6
The 800 cards are not going to be cheap will have to wait till amd come out with new cards. Remember how much the 780 was then the r9 290 came out and they had to lower prices.
#7
Thanks Buddy
#8
bought this card couple of months ago runs perfectly and has 3 presets for those of you with no overclocking experience
#9
Varanus261
First time builder here, is there any advantages in paying extra for the Asus or Gigabyte equivalent GTX 770 over MSI? Do MSI cards generally perform well and last?


Lol don't ask the people on here bud the stuff I've read people come out with is absolute bull regarding PC's and builds on here. Search for some kind of reputable forum, I wouldn't know any as I know all I need to know. Just buy what you can afford, more expensive the better :p
#10
2gb???????? useless nowdays especially if might be crossfired or sli


Edited By: bobo53 on Jul 24, 2014 13:18: rr
#11
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res
#12
For £50 more you could get a 4GB R9 290, would that be better value for money? Or?
1 Like #13
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
2 Likes #14
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.
banned#15
Great deal, Heat added
#16
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p

Total rubbish

I have this card and watchdogs and it plays maxed out with a single 1080P monitor fine
1 Like #17
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.
1 Like #18
Ironically vulcan pontificates without empirical evidence. Got 770 budget msi back in november £223. Great card and runs watchdogs maxed out 1080p.
1 Like #19
What evidence do you need? Google it. Check the ubi forums. Look at the patch release news.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/893138-Stuttering-post-patch?s=6db1290c173267eae6c47cff24a2de44

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/892700-Watch-Dogs-Patch-(6-18-14)/page68

http://www.incgamers.com/2014/06/watch-dogs-pc-patch-released-issues-such-as-stuttering-still-exist

http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/25727/20140620/watch-dogs-pc-patch.htm

But that's ok, I have only had the game from release and watched the hilarity ensue on the forums and raft of complaints about the title.

2GB isn't a lot of video memory these days for the higher end games that can and do demand more. Bear it in mind when you spend this much on a video card, is what I am saying.



Edited By: vulcanproject on Jul 24, 2014 13:55
#20
#21
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.

Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently, now I lower some of the crappier settings. The reason I lowered it was 60FPS was nice but the often dips down were angering, now I get high 100s in FPS after some minor tweaks. I have no issues with my card what-so-ever and it powers Watch_Dogs are a rather acceptable FPS. Your advice is clearly wrong if I am able to play the game with such a high FPS at 1080P on my Asus VG248QE monitor (144Hz) and have no issues.

I'm wanting a second 680 just for some of those games but now I am considering a 780 all in all, I have no issues, if your card IS more powerful then it sounds faulty and you should stop passing off bad advice to people, either that or my card is just like Mohammed Ali knocking out everybody elses cards.

EDIT: you have CARD(S) in SLI which is incredibly unreliable most of the time for games that can use it but have it poorly optimized, You realize two 2GB GTX 680s in SLI only have 2GB video memory right? so if you have 1.5GBx2 its still only 1.5GB of Video Memory.

Edited By: Ufailedx on Jul 24, 2014 13:56
1 Like #22
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.

Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently, now I lower some of the crappier settings. The reason I lowered it was 60FPS was nice but the often dips down were angering, now I get high 100s in FPS after some minor tweaks. I have no issues with my card what-so-ever and it powers Watch_Dogs are a rather acceptable FPS. Your advice is clearly wrong if I am able to play the game with such a high FPS at 1080P on my Asus VG248QE monitor (144Hz) and have no issues.

I'm wanting a second 680 just for some of those games but now I am considering a 780 all in all, I have no issues, if your card IS more powerful then it sounds faulty and you should stop passing off bad advice to people, either that or my card is just like Mohammed Ali knocking out everybody elses cards.

EDIT: you have CARD(S) in SLI which is incredibly unreliable most of the time for games that can use it but have it poorly optimized, You realize two 2GB GTX 680s in SLI only have 2GB video memory right? so if you have 1.5GBx2 its still only 1.5GB of Video Memory.

I think you have to realise that games can use more than 2Gb of video memory these days even at 1080p, Watch dogs is one of them, and that you raging about it to me doesn't change the fact that watch dogs has serious stuttering issues for a large large percentage of people. I'm quite sure some people have different experiences such is the nature of Pc gaming, but don't mistake my statement for misleading or lies.

It's all out there, anyone can look for themselves and know that what I have said is factually correct and what I have said has come from first hand experience, watching this particular game's Video memory usage rocket beyond 3Gb on ultra and cause immense stuttering even at a mere 1080p.

Nobody said anything about SLI, and yes, I'm quite aware that video memory is mirrored in SLI/crossfire modes.
1 Like #23
Hredknapp

http://hothardware.com/News/Optimization-Tips-And-Tricks-For-Watch-Dogs/#!bk2uww

Read.

Also, it might help to actually watch your own video.

The textures are clearly set to 'high', not ultra. The game still stutters like crap in that video too, jeez, why did you post this again?


Edited By: vulcanproject on Jul 24, 2014 14:08: .
#24
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.

Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently, now I lower some of the crappier settings. The reason I lowered it was 60FPS was nice but the often dips down were angering, now I get high 100s in FPS after some minor tweaks. I have no issues with my card what-so-ever and it powers Watch_Dogs are a rather acceptable FPS. Your advice is clearly wrong if I am able to play the game with such a high FPS at 1080P on my Asus VG248QE monitor (144Hz) and have no issues.

I'm wanting a second 680 just for some of those games but now I am considering a 780 all in all, I have no issues, if your card IS more powerful then it sounds faulty and you should stop passing off bad advice to people, either that or my card is just like Mohammed Ali knocking out everybody elses cards.

EDIT: you have CARD(S) in SLI which is incredibly unreliable most of the time for games that can use it but have it poorly optimized, You realize two 2GB GTX 680s in SLI only have 2GB video memory right? so if you have 1.5GBx2 its still only 1.5GB of Video Memory.

I think you have to realise that games can use more than 2Gb of video memory these days even at 1080p, Watch dogs is one of them, and that you raging about it to me doesn't change the fact that watch dogs has serious stuttering issues for a large large percentage of people. I'm quite sure some people have different experiences such is the nature of Pc gaming, but don't mistake my statement for misleading or lies.

It's all out there, anyone can look for themselves and know that what I have said is factually correct and what I have said has come from first hand experience, watching this particular game's Video memory usage rocket beyond 3Gb on ultra and cause immense stuttering even at a mere 1080p.

Nobody said anything about SLI, and yes, I'm quite aware that video memory is mirrored in SLI/crossfire modes.

You still have yet to tell us your cards, your card could be one its poorly optimized on. I know my GTX 680 can do Ultra and has no issues being on Ultra yours might be 'factually correct' for your cards and it might also be 'factually correct' for you but I am tell you my experience and I am telling you it doesn't affect everyone, It's far better to get ONE powerful card and just keep that rather than two slightly weaker and SLI it EG GTX 670 SLI VS GTX 780 Ti as an example for the current generations
#25
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.

Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently, now I lower some of the crappier settings. The reason I lowered it was 60FPS was nice but the often dips down were angering, now I get high 100s in FPS after some minor tweaks. I have no issues with my card what-so-ever and it powers Watch_Dogs are a rather acceptable FPS. Your advice is clearly wrong if I am able to play the game with such a high FPS at 1080P on my Asus VG248QE monitor (144Hz) and have no issues.

I'm wanting a second 680 just for some of those games but now I am considering a 780 all in all, I have no issues, if your card IS more powerful then it sounds faulty and you should stop passing off bad advice to people, either that or my card is just like Mohammed Ali knocking out everybody elses cards.

EDIT: you have CARD(S) in SLI which is incredibly unreliable most of the time for games that can use it but have it poorly optimized, You realize two 2GB GTX 680s in SLI only have 2GB video memory right? so if you have 1.5GBx2 its still only 1.5GB of Video Memory.

I think you have to realise that games can use more than 2Gb of video memory these days even at 1080p, Watch dogs is one of them, and that you raging about it to me doesn't change the fact that watch dogs has serious stuttering issues for a large large percentage of people. I'm quite sure some people have different experiences such is the nature of Pc gaming, but don't mistake my statement for misleading or lies.

It's all out there, anyone can look for themselves and know that what I have said is factually correct and what I have said has come from first hand experience, watching this particular game's Video memory usage rocket beyond 3Gb on ultra and cause immense stuttering even at a mere 1080p.

Nobody said anything about SLI, and yes, I'm quite aware that video memory is mirrored in SLI/crossfire modes.

You still have yet to tell us your cards, your card could be one its poorly optimized on. I know my GTX 680 can do Ultra and has no issues being on Ultra yours might be 'factually correct' for your cards and it might also be 'factually correct' for you but I am tell you my experience and I am telling you it doesn't affect everyone, It's far better to get ONE powerful card and just keep that rather than two slightly weaker and SLI it EG GTX 670 SLI VS GTX 780 Ti as an example for the current generations

780ti 3GB. Does it matter?

Just read the article from a PC hardware website that says exactly the same thing I do.

http://hothardware.com/News/Optimization-Tips-And-Tricks-For-Watch-Dogs/#!bk2uww

Now go email them and argue with them they are incorrect too, you are aggressive enough to do it I'm sure
#26
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res
Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.
Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently
You ran it with constant stuttering due to exceeding the VRAM on your card if you had it maxed out. The fact that Watch_Dogs uses more than 2GB even at 1080p isn't up for debate. It uses closer to 3GB. You realise that it doesn't actually affect reported framerates, yes? Posting your framerates is pointless in this context. What exceeding the limits of your VRAM introduces is stuttering, and if you're claiming you had Watch_Dogs running silky smooth using Ultra textures at 1080p on a 2GB card, then I guess your PC must run on fairy dust and good vibrations or something.

Edited By: Aretak on Jul 24, 2014 14:07
1 Like #27
Aretak
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res
Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.
Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently
You ran it with constant stuttering due to exceeding the VRAM on your card if you had it maxed out. The fact that Watch_Dogs uses more than 2GB even at 1080p isn't up for debate. It uses closer to 3GB. You realise that it doesn't actually affect reported framerates, yes? Posting your framerates is pointless in this context. What exceeding the limits of your VRAM introduces is stuttering, and if you're claiming you had Watch_Dogs running silky smooth using Ultra textures at 1080p on a 2GB card, then I guess your PC must run on fairy dust and good vibrations or something.

Don't bother explaining. They jumped on me soon as I posted and pointed this out. Then someone posted a video of running the game with just 'high' texture setting and the rest ultra that still stutters all over the place, pretty much as I said. Watch Dogs cannot be ran smoothly on ultra with this card @ 1080p.

End of story.

Close discussion.
#28
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.

Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently, now I lower some of the crappier settings. The reason I lowered it was 60FPS was nice but the often dips down were angering, now I get high 100s in FPS after some minor tweaks. I have no issues with my card what-so-ever and it powers Watch_Dogs are a rather acceptable FPS. Your advice is clearly wrong if I am able to play the game with such a high FPS at 1080P on my Asus VG248QE monitor (144Hz) and have no issues.

I'm wanting a second 680 just for some of those games but now I am considering a 780 all in all, I have no issues, if your card IS more powerful then it sounds faulty and you should stop passing off bad advice to people, either that or my card is just like Mohammed Ali knocking out everybody elses cards.

EDIT: you have CARD(S) in SLI which is incredibly unreliable most of the time for games that can use it but have it poorly optimized, You realize two 2GB GTX 680s in SLI only have 2GB video memory right? so if you have 1.5GBx2 its still only 1.5GB of Video Memory.

I think you have to realise that games can use more than 2Gb of video memory these days even at 1080p, Watch dogs is one of them, and that you raging about it to me doesn't change the fact that watch dogs has serious stuttering issues for a large large percentage of people. I'm quite sure some people have different experiences such is the nature of Pc gaming, but don't mistake my statement for misleading or lies.

It's all out there, anyone can look for themselves and know that what I have said is factually correct and what I have said has come from first hand experience, watching this particular game's Video memory usage rocket beyond 3Gb on ultra and cause immense stuttering even at a mere 1080p.

Nobody said anything about SLI, and yes, I'm quite aware that video memory is mirrored in SLI/crossfire modes.

You still have yet to tell us your cards, your card could be one its poorly optimized on. I know my GTX 680 can do Ultra and has no issues being on Ultra yours might be 'factually correct' for your cards and it might also be 'factually correct' for you but I am tell you my experience and I am telling you it doesn't affect everyone, It's far better to get ONE powerful card and just keep that rather than two slightly weaker and SLI it EG GTX 670 SLI VS GTX 780 Ti as an example for the current generations

780ti 3GB. Does it matter?

Just read the article from a PC hardware website that says exactly the same thing I do.

http://hothardware.com/News/Optimization-Tips-And-Tricks-For-Watch-Dogs/#!bk2uww

Now go email them and argue with them they are incorrect too, you are aggressive enough to do it I'm sure
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.

Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently, now I lower some of the crappier settings. The reason I lowered it was 60FPS was nice but the often dips down were angering, now I get high 100s in FPS after some minor tweaks. I have no issues with my card what-so-ever and it powers Watch_Dogs are a rather acceptable FPS. Your advice is clearly wrong if I am able to play the game with such a high FPS at 1080P on my Asus VG248QE monitor (144Hz) and have no issues.

I'm wanting a second 680 just for some of those games but now I am considering a 780 all in all, I have no issues, if your card IS more powerful then it sounds faulty and you should stop passing off bad advice to people, either that or my card is just like Mohammed Ali knocking out everybody elses cards.

EDIT: you have CARD(S) in SLI which is incredibly unreliable most of the time for games that can use it but have it poorly optimized, You realize two 2GB GTX 680s in SLI only have 2GB video memory right? so if you have 1.5GBx2 its still only 1.5GB of Video Memory.

I think you have to realise that games can use more than 2Gb of video memory these days even at 1080p, Watch dogs is one of them, and that you raging about it to me doesn't change the fact that watch dogs has serious stuttering issues for a large large percentage of people. I'm quite sure some people have different experiences such is the nature of Pc gaming, but don't mistake my statement for misleading or lies.

It's all out there, anyone can look for themselves and know that what I have said is factually correct and what I have said has come from first hand experience, watching this particular game's Video memory usage rocket beyond 3Gb on ultra and cause immense stuttering even at a mere 1080p.

Nobody said anything about SLI, and yes, I'm quite aware that video memory is mirrored in SLI/crossfire modes.

You still have yet to tell us your cards, your card could be one its poorly optimized on. I know my GTX 680 can do Ultra and has no issues being on Ultra yours might be 'factually correct' for your cards and it might also be 'factually correct' for you but I am tell you my experience and I am telling you it doesn't affect everyone, It's far better to get ONE powerful card and just keep that rather than two slightly weaker and SLI it EG GTX 670 SLI VS GTX 780 Ti as an example for the current generations

780ti 3GB. Does it matter?

Just read the article from a PC hardware website that says exactly the same thing I do.

http://hothardware.com/News/Optimization-Tips-And-Tricks-For-Watch-Dogs/#!bk2uww

Now go email them and argue with them they are incorrect too, you are aggressive enough to do it I'm sure

You have two 780 Ti 3GB's in SLI? What's the point in that?

I am running Watch Dogs flawlessly maxed out, I did this BEFORE the 'optimization' and I stopped playing the game due to its network bugs. So please kindly leave and stop giving users false information.

All you've shown is an article yet two others are having no issues maxing this game out at 1080P on 2GB ram video cards.


PSA: If you want a powerful card then this is pretty good, don't use SLI as its buggy and will improve, if you want a 780 Ti for that bit more power wait till the new series of AMD and NVIDIA cards release.
#29
^ ^ these are the kind of know it alls I was talking about haha! How very sad
#30
Nicko1387
^ ^ these are the kind of know it alls I was talking about haha! How very sad

You mean an informed user? You should know what you're buying before you buy it.

Aretak
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res
Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.
Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently
You ran it with constant stuttering due to exceeding the VRAM on your card if you had it maxed out. The fact that Watch_Dogs uses more than 2GB even at 1080p isn't up for debate. It uses closer to 3GB. You realise that it doesn't actually affect reported framerates, yes? Posting your framerates is pointless in this context. What exceeding the limits of your VRAM introduces is stuttering, and if you're claiming you had Watch_Dogs running silky smooth using Ultra textures at 1080p on a 2GB card, then I guess your PC must run on fairy dust and good vibrations or something.

I actually didn't have much stuttering and I don't get any now that I've tweaked the game so just use common sense and adjust the game accordingly. I've seen the game, I've played the game and I know what I do and don't get. The only thing that angers me about this game and stopped me playing is the texture popping as its referred to (cars, textures, players, npcs coming out of nowhere)

That's what made me stop not any stuttering. Sorry to disappoint you but the only downsides to the game are the networking issues the Ubisoft are too stupid to fix and refuse to help fix on forums and the texture popping.
#31
Varanus261
First time builder here, is there any advantages in paying extra for the Asus or Gigabyte equivalent GTX 770 over MSI? Do MSI cards generally perform well and last?

Not at all MSI are a decent brand and slowly becoming more popular.
#32
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

looks like whatch dog must be a low quality game graphically
#33
bobo53
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res

Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

looks like whatch dog must be a low quality game graphically

It's a low quality game in terms of its issues which for some is stuttering which is a graphics card issue + poor configuration + poor optimization on Ubisoft's side but the game itself has awful texture popping and network problems.
#34
Ufailedx
Nicko1387
^ ^ these are the kind of know it alls I was talking about haha! How very sad

You mean an informed user? You should know what you're buying before you buy it.

Aretak
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
Ufailedx
vulcanproject
beerglass007
2GB is fine for 1080P, buy 3 or 4GB if going higher in screen res
Ironically 2GB is not enough to actually run the game maxed that comes with the card. It's adequate for most games, but no longer enough for higher end cards and many games maxed even at 1080p
You're making up a lot of crap right now.

I have a GTX 680 2GB and can max out Watch_Dogs at 1080p at a decent 75 ish frames usually so what you've just said is basically a lie.

You will struggle if using more than TWO monitors at 1080p I'd say even then it'd only be barely.

Please be quiet unless you know what you are talking about. The patch last month never really addressed the stutter either, although it did improve it for some people.

You can't run the game at Ultra because it'll use more than 3Gb of Video memory, the stuttering is awful. Even at high you have to tweak down settings like MSAA as the game can exceed 2GB quite comfortably @ 1080p. I have better cards than you, and it's the same on all of them with less than 3GB VRAM for maxed ultra settings.
Oh okay, I understand now, you're a registered moron then.

I have ran Watch Dogs at ULTRA settings all maxed out hitting 60FPS decently
You ran it with constant stuttering due to exceeding the VRAM on your card if you had it maxed out. The fact that Watch_Dogs uses more than 2GB even at 1080p isn't up for debate. It uses closer to 3GB. You realise that it doesn't actually affect reported framerates, yes? Posting your framerates is pointless in this context. What exceeding the limits of your VRAM introduces is stuttering, and if you're claiming you had Watch_Dogs running silky smooth using Ultra textures at 1080p on a 2GB card, then I guess your PC must run on fairy dust and good vibrations or something.

I actually didn't have much stuttering and I don't get any now that I've tweaked the game so just use common sense and adjust the game accordingly. I've seen the game, I've played the game and I know what I do and don't get. The only thing that angers me about this game and stopped me playing is the texture popping as its referred to (cars, textures, players, npcs coming out of nowhere)

That's what made me stop not any stuttering. Sorry to disappoint you but the only downsides to the game are the networking issues the Ubisoft are too stupid to fix and refuse to help fix on forums and the texture popping.


No, I meant exactly what I said
#35
The amount of people crying about FPS, my god.
#36
bobo53
2gb???????? useless nowdays especially if might be crossfired or sli


Woah, know your facts before you post misleading comments like this.
There's more to it than just RAM.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Currently the 10th best consumer card on the market.
#37
gtx 800 cards already? wow ive been out the loop for too long lol
#38
Too much confirmation bias here ladies. we are all wrong.
#39
Ufailedx


You have two 780 Ti 3GB's in SLI? What's the point in that?

I am running Watch Dogs flawlessly maxed out, I did this BEFORE the 'optimization' and I stopped playing the game due to its network bugs. So please kindly leave and stop giving users false information.

All you've shown is an article yet two others are having no issues maxing this game out at 1080P on 2GB ram video cards.


PSA: If you want a powerful card then this is pretty good, don't use SLI as its buggy and will improve, if you want a 780 Ti for that bit more power wait till the new series of AMD and NVIDIA cards release.

Nobody said anything about SLI except you, I certainly didn't. Yet you are still banging on about it. Clearly you cannot read what anyone else posts in this comment section so I am wasting my time posting anything else for you to read which only states the same thing I have said.

The game cannot be run maxed on only 2Gb video cards smoothly. It struggled on just high with only 2GB stuttering. It struggled with ultra and MSAA on 3Gb with stutter.

This is what I said. Simple to understand. You can tell us all about SLI this and your machine that but it is meaningless to the simple facts I posted.
#40
vulcanproject
Ufailedx


You have two 780 Ti 3GB's in SLI? What's the point in that?

I am running Watch Dogs flawlessly maxed out, I did this BEFORE the 'optimization' and I stopped playing the game due to its network bugs. So please kindly leave and stop giving users false information.

All you've shown is an article yet two others are having no issues maxing this game out at 1080P on 2GB ram video cards.


PSA: If you want a powerful card then this is pretty good, don't use SLI as its buggy and will improve, if you want a 780 Ti for that bit more power wait till the new series of AMD and NVIDIA cards release.

Nobody said anything about SLI except you, I certainly didn't. Yet you are still banging on about it. Clearly you cannot read what anyone else posts in this comment section so I am wasting my time posting anything else for you to read which only states the same thing I have said.

The game cannot be run maxed on only 2Gb video cards smoothly. It struggled on just high with only 2GB stuttering. It struggled with ultra and MSAA on 3Gb with stutter.

This is what I said. Simple to understand. You can tell us all about SLI this and your machine that but it is meaningless to the simple facts I posted.

Technically you said my cards saying you were in SLI but it's fine I'll continue to enjoy my game at ultra, it's fine.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!