960 SLI

[ekuhlmann23]

I am looking to buy a new budget PC and I would like to know if getting SLI is worth it. I know that some of you are going to say "go with the 970" but I want the 960 simply because I can not afford the 970. I am not getting 2 GPUs at once, it would be more like 1 now and when the next gen comes out and the prices go down buy the second one. My question would be is it worth it spending extra on the PSU and mobo to get this capability or is it just not worth it? BTW I game on 1080p and I plan to upgrade my PC in approximately 3 years.

 

Thanks in advance.

[The Dragon]

Go with the 970

[soaringchicken]

Honestly, if this is going to last you 3 years I'd save up a bit longer to get a stronger single card solution.... Like the 970

[GrimNeo]

I am looking to buy a new budget PC and I would like to know if getting SLI is worth it. I know that some of you are going to say "go with the 970" but I want the 960 simply because I can not afford the 970. I am not getting 2 GPUs at once, it would be more like 1 now and when the next gen comes out and the prices go down buy the second one. My question would be is it worth it spending extra on the PSU and mobo to get this capability or is it just not worth it? BTW I game on 1080p and I plan to upgrade my PC in approximately 3 years.

 

Thanks in advance.

I would go with the 970 but sli depends on the game your playing. Each game is optimized differently that supports SLI. You might see a 50% increase in games like Tomb Raider and you might see 5% in other games. Maybe they will fix this later down the road. Go to the Nvidia website to see which games support SLI.

[Ostwind]

2GB of VRAM won't last another 3 years @1080p, save a bit more and get a 970 then add another later.

[ekuhlmann23]

Thanks for the advice then. I will just stick with the 970.

[Hieb]

2GB of VRAM won't last another 3 years @1080p, save a bit more and get a 970 then add another later.

 

I'm not so sure about this. AFAIK the only games where 2GB aren't enough are when played with AA or ultra textures, but most 2GB cards aren't powerful enough to perform well at those settings anyways (i.e. you would play at lower settings to get good framerates, and at these settings 2GB is probably enough). I can play BF4 at 4K on a 2GB card without issues, at ultra settings... so I imagine at 1080P 2GB is fine for a few more years as long as you're willing to play without AA and lower textures.

 

Although having said this, a GTX 970 is a better way to go. You'd make up most of that cost from not getting an SLI-ready board and PSU anyways. You may also want to look into an R9 290, they're closer to the price of a GTX 960 but perform pretty close behind a 970.

[j0hn4devils]

You could also go AMD, as their solutions are generally cheaper than nVidia's. That's what I recently did, and I currently have no regrets.

[Ostwind]

I'm not so sure about this. AFAIK the only games where 2GB aren't enough are when played with AA or ultra textures, but most 2GB cards aren't powerful enough to perform well at those settings anyways (i.e. you would play at lower settings to get good framerates, and at these settings 2GB is probably enough). I can play BF4 at 4K on a 2GB card without issues, at ultra settings... so I imagine at 1080P 2GB is fine for a few more years as long as you're willing to play without AA and lower textures.

 

Although having said this, a GTX 970 is a better way to go. You'd make up most of that cost from not getting an SLI-ready board and PSU anyways. You may also want to look into an R9 290, they're closer to the price of a GTX 960 but perform pretty close behind a 970.

The 960 is just a bit more powerful than the 760 though and two 760's are plenty powerful enough to perform at those settings. I run all of my games downsampled from 2k or 3k and if I have more headroom I stack AA on top of that. In addition you can get an SLI board on the intel side for $125 and you won't need as beefy a PSU as you will need for Xfire 290's.

[GrimNeo]

Thanks for the advice then. I will just stick with the 970.

Your welcome. Glad I could help.

[Hieb]

The 960 is just a bit more powerful than the 760 though and two 760's are plenty powerful enough to perform at those settings. I run all of my games downsampled from 2k or 3k and if I have more headroom I stack AA on top of that. In addition you can get an SLI board on the intel side for $125 and you won't need as beefy a PSU as you will need for Xfire 290's.

 

At what settings?

My point is that in the games where 2GB is NOT ENOUGH, the settings that push beyond 2GB would probably perform poorly on most 2GB cards cards if they're demanding enough to use more than 2GB of VRAM... that is if a setting is using more VRAM, it's also going to be more taxing and at that point is probably more than the card could handle.

 

For example my 760 can play BF4 over 30 fps at 4K on ultra without MSAA. This doesn't break the 2GB of VRAM. BUT if I turn on MSAA on top of that, VRAM caps out. But at that point the card would perform terribly even if VRAM didn't max out... having a 4GB 760 would only help marginally since given that it plays around 30-35 fps at 4K, at 4K w/ MSAA it would play at like 20 fps anyways.