Well evga is one of the best companies to get a gpu from, so Im sure you will be happy. I love their backplates lol
Originally Posted by Thoth420
Gaming it works fine. Some issues that I had on my AMD card are gone and some aren't(figure those are game issues). I just don't get how a display driver crashes opening chrome or opening gpu z while watching a video on vlc. These are simple tasks for a system and since I use this computer for work, play, and media it really needs to always be on. Couple questions for you guys as I am probably being too impulsive(and at the time I made that post pretty angry....often am after waking up):
I have my power plan for win7 set to High Performance and everything is set to never turn off(including hard disk, display etc.) no sleep mode, no hibernate etc. My power bill or "being green" are not a concern to me
in regards to power consumption for my computer. I had my GPU power setting in the NVCP set to its default adaptive when the crash occurred and the system had been on but not in use for approx 10 hours. Utorrent running as usual but that was it....I was sleeping and there are no kids or ninja cat operators in my house. Should I just leave it on Prefer High Performance in global? My first impulse was to do this but some people on EVGA forums told me not to bother and being new to Nvidia after many years I decided to take their advice.
Is the 320.08 and 320.20 essentially the same driver with a few minor changes? IE is the more important number the 320? AMD are easy to understand as they are the month and year. Little confused.
If the next release is another 320.xx does that indicate it is a patched driver and if say it was released as idk 333.xx that would be a completely new driver? Sorry don't know how else to word this.
Honestly I just leave every setting as is in the nvidia control panel, I just change it to 120hz for my monitor. I also didnt install the nvidia experience thing which some believe to be the issue. Not sure what the numbers designate, I just read the release notes.
Originally Posted by MainChicken
I like my 770 and I'm happy I got it but does anyone else think it's slightly flawed?
They took a 680 which is a card that ran fairly hot and put more volts through it.
They improved the cooling but put boost 2 on it which starts to under-volt/clock at only 80c.
It's actually a difficult card to keep below that temperature.
I'm ok my card with a slight overclock hits about 76 max. But if my ambient temperature was even a bit higher I would have trouble keeping it under 80c.
I think for people in hotter climates the 680 could out perform a 770.
Yeah I dont like breaking 70C myself either, I have an aggressive fan profile set to spin at 100% at 64C mostly because my case is small and ambient temps are in the 80-82F range already. Depending on the game I will be in the high 60's to the highest being 78C playing NFS most wanted no less lol (think that game isnt coded efficiently since I got hotter than crysis 3). I dont think these temps are dangerous, instead think nvidia realized they were too worried about the 680 temps than they needed to be. OR they were that smart in marketing to create an early distinction of the 680 to make people get the 770.