GTX 960 4GB worth it?

[Nena Trinity]

Yeah I wonder how it is for just 1080p gaming. Also how future proof or how long will it be usable?

 

Edit below here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Conclusion so far.

*960 4GB wont be usable that much...

*970 is costly and has less VRAM...

*AMD Catalyst OpenGL sucks...

 

What should I do?

*Buy 960 4GB?

*Buy 290 and pray they fix the drivers?

*Buy 970 and do with just 3.5GB Vram and avoid games like Far Cry? (that is gonna hurt my wallet...)

 

Edit 2 below here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Moved to:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/375573-best-card-for-opengl-linux/

[PineappleHolidays]

Get a 280x or R9 290, or if the 960 is really cheap, the 960.

960 4gb is useless and not very powerful ( coming in more expensive than some R9 290's ) .

[WereCat]

Not really

[CatzRuleZWorld]

I think 2gb is good for 1080p and you'll reach the GPU limit before you hit the gram limit

[pomaranc]

Really bad price/performance.

[Mattrixx]

Yeah I wonder how it is for just 1080p gaming. Also how future proof or how long will it be usable?

"Future proof" doesn't exist. 4GB on a 960 is pretty senseless. Also, a 280x would be better for the money. I heard that that some AMD cards have been going up in price, so check out prices first of course.

[typographie]

A 4 GB GTX 960 is too close to the price of a superior GPU, like an R9 290 with a rebate.

[Nena Trinity]

Get a 280x or R9 290, or if the 960 is really cheap, the 960.

960 4gb is useless and not very powerful ( coming in more expensive than some R9 290's ) .

Well I would get a 290 cuse its not to high priced but their damn Linux drivers isnt able to reach 50fps on both Metro & Bioshock!

While the 960 reach over 100+ fps...

 

Not really

Why?

 

I think 2gb is good for 1080p and you'll reach the GPU limit before you hit the gram limit

Hmm so the 4GB is pointless?

 

Really bad price/performance.

I do agree but the only option is a 970 but that one does not have 4GB VRAM which I kinda want or need somewhere there.

 

"Future proof" doesn't exist. 4GB on a 960 is pretty senseless. Also, a 280x would be better for the money. I heard that that some AMD cards have been going up in price, so check out prices first of course.

Not in Linux it does worse than the 290 did and it was 35fps or so in Metro and Bioshock... While 960 got over 100+ fps so... =S

 

 

A 4 GB GTX 960 is too close to the price of a superior GPU, like an R9 290 with a rebate.

 

Not even near in OpenGL a 290 cant even go above 50 fps on average as is with current drivers... I could go 290 and pray it gets fixed?

[pomaranc]

Well I would get a 290 cuse its not to high priced but their damn Linux drivers isnt able to reach 50fps on both Metro & Bioshock!

While the 960 reach over 100+ fps...

 

Why?

 

Hmm so the 4GB is pointless?

 

I do agree but the only option is a 970 but that one does not have 4GB VRAM which I kinda want or need somewhere there.

 

Not in Linux it does worse than the 290 did and it was 35fps or so in Metro and Bioshock... While 960 got over 100+ fps so... =S

970 Will give you much better performance no matter the resolution, 960 will never use 4GB of VRAM in games and 970 has enough VRAM.

[grayblizzard]

Yeah I wonder how it is for just 1080p gaming. Also how future proof or how long will it be usable?

if you want a quiet, power-efficient 1080p gaming card this video shows it is good:

 

[typographie]

Not in Linux it does worse than the 290 did and it was 35fps or so in Metro and Bioshock... While 960 got over 100+ fps so... =S

 

Is there a benchmark you can link for that? I don't see a lot of Linux gaming benchmarks.

 

If you're going to stick with the 960, it makes more sense in the 2 GB flavor. And yes, I do believe it's enough at 1080p, at least for the kind of gaming you can expect out of a $200 card.

[Briggsy]

4GB is slightly more than a 960 can probably handle, but 2GB is bare minimum these days. I had a 4GB gtx 760, and there were definitely a lot of games that went past 2GB of Vram usage, and that was more than a year ago.

 

It looks like there is a 3GB 960ti coming out shortly, and probably won't cost much more than a 4GB 960, but 3GB is a minimum for 1080p going forward (in my own opinion). I would personally look into a 290 for the price to performance.

[PineappleHolidays]

if you want a quiet, power-efficient 1080p gaming card this video shows it is good:

 

Doesn't talk about pricing . he also has not tested it vs his R9 280 .

At the price of the 960 4gb I would get a better card, 970 or R9 290 .

even the 960 2gb is a bit illogical to me when you can get a 3gb more powerful card for ~the same price ( R9 280x ) .

[Nena Trinity]

970 Will give you much better performance no matter the resolution, 960 will never use 4GB of VRAM in games and 970 has enough VRAM.

I know but some rare games do and what about 3+ years from now?

 

if you want a quiet, power-efficient 1080p gaming card this video shows it is good:

 

Seen it.

 

Is there a benchmark you can link for that? I don't see a lot of Linux gaming benchmarks.

 

If you're going to stick with the 960, it makes more sense in the 2 GB flavor. And yes, I do believe it's enough at 1080p, at least for the kind of gaming you can expect out of a $200 card.

Bioshock Infinite bench. I did really want the 290 but after seeing that I was like *bleep* this...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bioshock-inf-18&num=2

 

 

4GB is slightly more than a 960 can probably handle, but 2GB is bare minimum these days. I had a 4GB gtx 760, and there were definitely a lot of games that went past 2GB of Vram usage, and that was more than a year ago.

 

It looks like there is a 3GB 960ti coming out shortly, and probably won't cost much more than a 4GB 960, but 3GB is a minimum for 1080p going forward (in my own opinion). I would personally look into a 290 for the price to performance.

 

290 isnt able to even reach 50 fps in OpenGL, not being a fan-girl I actually wanted a 290 as first pick... =c

[pomaranc]

I know but some rare games do and what about 3+ years from now?

 

Seen it.

 

Bioshock Infinite bench. I did really want the 290 but after seeing that I was like *bleep* this...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bioshock-inf-18&num=2

960 is not powerfull enough on settings so high that they will require more than 2 GB you won't get enough FPS anyway. 

[Sam Z Man]

The 960 is the most useless card for the cost since the Titan Z.

[typographie]

Bioshock Infinite bench. I did really want the 290 but after seeing that I was like *bleep* this...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bioshock-inf-18&num=2

 

Those results are kind of all over the place—like, they have the 960 beating the 970. I guess I don't really know what to expect in Linux, but I certainly question that.  :blink:

 

Are you gaming only in Linux? No Windows at all?

 

Again, the 960 is fine for it's price if you want to stick with Nvidia, but I'd recommend ignoring the 4 GB version. Either that or save for a 970.

[itachipirate]

No. If you want something with GTX 960 performance and more VRAM, get an R9 280x 3gb for the same price as the 960 2gb

 

Don't ever get a low/mid ranged GPUs with super pimped out VRAM because it does nothing, and it's just marketing crap. If you're using Linux trying looking around for user-modded drivers, with my old HD3870 I had to get some custom drivers to fix a lot of issues with general usage of my computer (It's a really old graphics card, and I was using it with W8.1)

[Sam Z Man]

Yes it has 4gb but will it's memory bus ever let you use it, hell no.

[grayblizzard]

Doesn't talk about pricing . he also has not tested it vs his R9 280 .

At the price of the 960 4gb I would get a better card, 970 or R9 290 .

even the 960 2gb is a bit illogical to me when you can get a 3gb more powerful card for ~the same price ( R9 280x ) .

i said quiet and power-efficient not to mention the heat i am just sayin i would have bought a 960 4gb over my 280

[Mattrixx]

Not in Linux it does worse than the 290 did and it was 35fps or so in Metro and Bioshock... While 960 got over 100+ fps so... =S

You didn't specify you had plans to run it with Linux. The 290 is still more powerful, it's just that Nvidia drivers got/get more attention on Linux. Also, don't use Linux for benchmarks unless you plan to run on it. And even then things can change very fast on it.

 

Also, of course the 280x would do worse than the 290, what did you expect? I suggested it because it was closer in price to a normal 960, and it'd be fine for 1080p gaming.

[Nena Trinity]

960 is not powerfull enough on settings so high that they will require more than 2 GB you won't get enough FPS anyway. 

I seen it do well in Witcher 3 on windows and in OpenGL it beats the 290.. =S

 

The 960 is the most useless card for the cost since the Titan Z.

I kinda would agree but unless AMD can fix their drivers I am forced on green cards. =c

 

Those results are kind of all over the place—like, they have the 960 beating the 970. I guess I don't really know what to expect in Linux, but I certainly question that.  :blink:

 

Are you gaming only in Linux? No Windows at all?

 

Again, the 960 is fine for it's price if you want to stick with Nvidia, but I'd recommend ignoring the 4 GB version. Either that or save for a 970.

Windows when I have to but my mot demanding Windows game reaquires alot less than Linux game cause Metro...

 

No. If you want something with GTX 960 performance and more VRAM, get an R9 280x 3gb for the same price as the 960 2gb

 

Don't ever get a low/mid ranged GPUs with super pimped out VRAM because it does nothing, and it's just marketing crap

Like I did say to the other in OpenGL the radeon cards fails badly! :c

 

Yes it has 4gb but will it's memory bus ever let you use it, hell no.

I kinda do see but the only option is 970?

 

You didn't specify you had plans to run it with Linux. The 290 is still more powerful, it's just that Nvidia drivers got/get more attention on Linux. Also, don't use Linux for benchmarks unless you plan to run on it. And even then things can change very fast on it.

 

Also, of course the 280x would do worse than the 290, what did you expect? I suggested it because it was closer in price to a normal 960, and it'd be fine for 1080p gaming.

 

It wasnt long ago since AMD released new drivers and it was meant to fix the issues but did not. Also some games I got doesnt seem to be shown properly with AMD cards which makes me wonder if the devs of the game messed up or AMD... =S

 

Also Metro is in Linux and much more =D

[pomaranc]

I seen it do well in Witcher 3 on windows and in OpenGL it beats the 290.. =S

 

I kinda would agree but unless AMD can fix their drivers I am forced on green cards. =c

 

Windows when I have to but my mot demanding Windows game reaquires alot less than Linux game cause Metro...

 

Like I did say to the other in OpenGL the radeon cards fails badly! :c

4GB 960 is stupid, people overestimate importance of VRAM since all of the 970 3.5GB VRAM gate whatever BS happend. More VRAM won't give you better performance with 960, if you have enough money get 970 if not get 280, 280x or 960 2GB

[Sam Z Man]

I seen it do well in Witcher 3 on windows and in OpenGL it beats the 290.. =S

That's like saying you can cook more soup in a pot than in a frying pan.

Don't compare things if your only going to refer to situations where it's obvious one will beat the other.

[Nena Trinity]

4GB 960 is stupid, people overestimate importance of VRAM since all of the 970 3.5GB VRAM gate whatever BS happend. More VRAM won't give you better performance with 960, if you have enough money get 970 if not get 280, 280x or 960 2GB

I do not expect more performance now from the VRAM but later. =P

 

 

That's like saying you can cook more soup in a pot than in a frying pan.

Don't compare things if your only going to refer to situations where it's obvious one will beat the other.

 

Exactly how is it obvious it wins in OpenGL? The 290 is a monster and should have crushed the 960... AMD even had a massive lead!