OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£290VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):230 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 42 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.0

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 90% of graphics cards
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

3.7

Memory

12%

6.9

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

6.3

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 93%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (42)
21 reviews: 15 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 21 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
nvidia-geforce-gtx-770
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

Based on 21 · 28

Reviewers praise the quiet cooler and solid build, but fault the limited video memory and power draw; gaming performance splits opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

Based on 201 owners sharing their experience in online comments

72%positive14%mixed14%negative

Owners praise its lasting gaming performance and value, while limited VRAM and reliability failures cause the most frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Several owners said their cards died after several years, sometimes from heat buildup from dust or from sitting unused in a case.13
  • Owners said 2 GB of VRAM became a bottleneck in newer or heavier games, forcing lower textures.11
  • Some owners saw frame rates fall to around 30 fps with long stutters in demanding titles.11
  • Owners said newer games like Red Dead Redemption 2 were out of reach, and others needed low or medium settings.8
  • Owners reported display driver crashes, sometimes helped by a clean driver reinstall or a VBIOS update.6
  • Owners reported the card reaching about 80 degrees C under load, even with good case airflow or fresh thermal paste.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

3.7

Memory

12%

6.9

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

6.3

Connectivity

4.0
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

6.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,266 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,266 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 95% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
5,960 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 5,960 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 92.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
28,995 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 28,995 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 93% of graphics cards and equal to 2.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.33 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.33 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
224.3 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 224.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 83.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
21.6 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 21.6 Gbps, which is faster than on 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
230 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 230 W, which is higher than that of 56.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
230 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 230 W under peak load, which is higher than 53.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
245 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 245 W, which is higher than that of 54.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
230 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
280x 111x 38 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
907 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 907 g, which is lighter than 62.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (42)
    21 reviews: 15 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 21 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (42)
    21 reviews: 15 with a printed score, 6 estimated from the review. 21 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 2.4x higher compute score
    This graphics card has a higher compute score than the average graphics card (28,995 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    28,995 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 0.2% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,753 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,753 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 56.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,085 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,085 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 45.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,046 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,046 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 48.7% lower sentiment score
    4.0 vs 7.8
  • 8.2% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.86 vs 7.4).
    6.86 vs 7.41
  • 56.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,085 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,085 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 45.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,046 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,046 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 78.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (34.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    34.72 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 63.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (138.9 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    138.9 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 85.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.33 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 10 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2013 vs 2023).
    May 2013
    2013 vs 2023
  • 73.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (5,960 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    5,960 points vs 22,638 points
  • 84.7% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,266 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,266 points vs 14,779 points
  • 70.8% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.14 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 2,816 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,536 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,536 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 63.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 49.9% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (224.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    224.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 84.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,540 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,540 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 13 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (80 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    80 °C vs 67 °C
  • 6.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (42 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    42 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 26 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (26 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    26 dB vs 0 dB
  • 7% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (230 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    230 W vs 215 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
boidaboi
≈ estimated
15/08/2024
Hands-on test · 2024 game and benchmark results
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 still runs most games at around 60 FPS, but it will fall behind as driver support fades.
6.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
18/04/2023
Long-term test · game performance 10 years later
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is still playable in many games with compromises, but its VRAM limit and limited DirectX 12 support hold it back.
9.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
25/02/2023
Hands-on review · gaming tests and VRAM limits
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is still a solid everyday card for its age if you stick to low settings and work around its limits.
4.0
The Gaming Assassin
≈ estimated
18/10/2022
Retro test · 2022 game benchmarks on a 2 GB card
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is playable in many older games, but its 2 GB of VRAM and missing DirectX 12 support make the R9 380 the better buy.
7.0
SPNG
≈ estimated
21/09/2022
Hands-on review · overclock and game benchmarks
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 performs well when overclocked, but it is not recommended for budget gaming because it lacks DirectX 12 support.
7.0
SPNG
≈ estimated
16/07/2022
Benchmark review · older card in modern games
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is still a good pick for older games despite limited DirectX 12 and driver support, though better value cards exist.
7.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
28/06/2022
Gameplay test · GTA 5 at 1080p, 1440p, 4K and 6K
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is good for 1080p and 1440p, but its 2 GB of VRAM makes 4K and 6K unplayable.
7.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
06/03/2022
Hands-on review · 14 game benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is worth it for esports and older titles at a low price, but it struggles with new games.
8.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
05/05/2017
Hands-on review · benchmarks and daily use
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is still fairly fast for a budget build, though it is near the end of its lifecycle.
9.0
Twisted Skinz Tech
≈ estimated
14/04/2017
Benchmark · overclock and game tests at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is definitely worth buying used at its price, though its 2 GB of VRAM limits heavy texture mods.
9.0
Nicolas11x12 English
✓ explicit
19/07/2013
Hands-on review · cooling, noise and performance
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 offers very good price-performance and quiet cooling, though overclocking headroom is minimal.
9.0
Tech of Tomorrow
≈ estimated
31/05/2013
Launch review · benchmarks and value comparison
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 is a strong, competitive launch deal, essentially a faster refreshed GTX 680 with better cooling.
More graded video reviews (5)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Review · Kepler graphics card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 770 is a GTX 680 with higher clock speeds, faster 7GHz memory and a Titan-style cooler.
9.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Benchmark review · Second-tier card
Verdict
The Nvidia GTX 770 beats the AMD HD 7970 GHz Edition in most games and draws less power, though it struggles in DiRT Showdown.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Benchmark review · Upgrade comparison
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 770 edges out the GTX 680 and beats the GTX 670 by about 13%, but the gain is too small to justify upgrading from one.
9.0
lanoc.org
≈ estimated
30/05/2013
Hands-on review · Reference design
Verdict
The Nvidia GTX 770 is a faster GTX 680 with 7GHz memory and a metal-shrouded cooler that looks as good as the GTX 780's.
8.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
29/05/2013
Benchmark review · Kepler card
Verdict
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 offers GTX 680 performance with a Titan-style cooler, but it's only a small step up for GTX 670 owners.
8.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
14/09/2013
Benchmark review · Gaming performance
Verdict
The Nvidia GTX 770 is a quieter GTX 680 that runs Crysis 3 well at 1080p, but it can't hold a locked 60fps on high settings.
8.6
bjorn3d.com
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Hands-on review · Partner card
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 770 is a quiet, well-cooled card that feels like a souped-up GTX 680, but it struggles in Crysis 3 at very high settings.
8.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Hands-on review · Factory-overclocked card
Verdict
The Gainward GTX 770 Phantom is a factory-overclocked card with a large triple-slot cooler that runs cooler and quieter.
9.0
vortez.net
≈ estimated
29/05/2013
Architecture review · GPU Boost 2.0
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 770 is a GTX 680 core with faster 7Gbps memory, giving more bandwidth, but its boost speed now depends on temperature.
10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Lab test · Triple-fan cooler
Verdict
The Palit GTX 770 JetStream is among the quietest cards in its class with a large overclock, but its triple-slot cooler may not fit every case.
overclockers.com
30/05/2013
Not graded yet
6.0
computerbild.de
≈ estimated
30/05/2013
Lab test · Zotac card
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 770 runs Battlefield 3 smoothly at full HD on top settings and stays fairly quiet, but draws heavy power under load.
7.7
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Hardware test · Reference design
Verdict
The GTX 770 is a higher-clocked GTX 680 with a Titan-style aluminium cooler, aimed at AMD's Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition.
8.5
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
18/07/2014
Hardware test · Overclocked model
Verdict
The Asus GTX 770 DirectCU II OC is a lightly overclocked GTX 770 where the 4GB option matters mostly above 1080p, except in Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs.
8.2
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
16/04/2014
Hardware test · Overclocked card
Verdict
The Gainward GTX 770 Phantom is about 10% faster than the reference card on paper, with three fans tucked inside its cooler that come off easily for cleaning.
6.0
pcwelt.de
✓ explicit
03/07/2013
Lab test · Cooling and noise
Verdict
The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 770 OC runs cool and quiet and is about 8% faster in games than the reference card, but the box includes almost nothing extra.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
13/11/2013
Lab test · Quiet overclocked card
Verdict
The Asus GeForce GTX 770 DirectCU II OC is quiet, but its light overclock adds only 2.6%, so it suits buyers who value low noise.
9.0
rehwolution.it
✓ explicit
30/05/2013
Hardware review · Overclock-friendly card
Verdict
The GTX 770 is a faster GK104 card that boosts past 1,100MHz automatically, suiting overclockers and gamers who want more speed than the GTX 680.
9.0
hwready.it
≈ estimated
03/06/2013
Hands-on test · Mid-range gaming card
Verdict
The Palit GTX 770 OC plays most games at 1080p on maximum settings with DirectX 11, but it struggles above Full HD.
9.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
30/05/2013
Review · Single-GPU gaming card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 770 is quiet, cool and fast for 1440p gaming, though its older GK104 chip is just an upgraded GTX 680.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

  • High performance for its price point at launch, effectively outperforming the previous flagship GTX 680 in most benchmarks
  • Excellent cooling system on reference models, noted for being nearly inaudible during idle and quiet under heavy load
  • Record-setting memory speeds for its time (7 Gbps), which provided a significant bandwidth boost
  • Strong overclocking potential for both the core and memory, allowing users to gain additional performance
  • Aesthetically pleasing design using premium materials like magnesium alloys, similar to the high-end Titan and GTX 780

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

  • Relatively high power consumption (TDP of 230W), requiring significant PSU overhead and producing more heat than its predecessors
  • Limited long-term viability of the 2GB VRAM version, which became a bottleneck for newer, more demanding games
  • Based on older 'Kepler' GK104 architecture rather than the newer GK110, making it an evolutionary rather than revolutionary upgrade
  • Diminishing returns for existing GTX 680 or 670 owners, as the performance jump was often too small to justify a new purchase
  • Inconsistent minimum frame rates in certain titles compared to AMD competitors, which could lead to noticeable micro-stuttering

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 is a high-end graphics card built on the 28nm Kepler architecture, featuring 1,536 CUDA cores, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 1,046 MHz with a boost up to 1,085 MHz, and it was notable at launch for its 'blisteringly fast' 7 Gbps GDDR5 memory across a 256-bit interface, providing 224.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Main pros include its improved 230W power delivery system supporting GPU Boost 2.0, a premium Titan-style vapor chamber cooler for quiet operation, and significant performance gains over its predecessors at a competitive $399 launch price. However, its primary cons include its limited 2GB VRAM capacity in reference models, which can bottleneck modern high-resolution gaming, its relatively high 230W TDP compared to previous generations, and its aging architecture that lacks full DirectX 12 feature level support for newer titles.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found