About the 4GB 960...

[RASQ]

Everyone is saying that a 128 bit bus can't handle 4GB. The Titan X is 12GB and Anandtech is speculating that it will have a 384 bit bus which Linus said is "a very good bet" on the WAN show. If I'm understanding how this works, thats equivalent to 4GB with 128 bit. That means it must work then, right? It may not have been enough in the past but I'm under the impression that it's very dependant on the chip architecture.

[SirSquid]

We still don't know if its a dual GPU card, if it is that is 6GB per gpu with each GPU having a 328bit bus

[Bazinga!]

I dont think getting a 4gb 960 is worth it(even if it actually comes out). Would rather save and get a 970

[Ostwind]

We still don't know if its a dual GPU card, if it is that is 6GB per gpu with each GPU having a 328bit bus

What are you talking about? it's a single core card.

[dandrix]

GTX 960 shoulda had 3 GB, but nooo...

[AlexWJD]

Its not mean't for gaming, but more geared towards a workstation scenario.

[Megahurt]

We still don't know if its a dual GPU card, if it is that is 6GB per gpu with each GPU having a 328bit bus

 

There are pictures of the back of the pcb, it's clearly a single gpu card.

 

As for the 960, I think that by the point you reach 4GB, the gpu won't have enough horsepower to process the graphics, but it certainly does have enough power to use more than 2GB. The problem with all previous card with double the memory, is that the price difference is far greater than the performance difference. My guess is that it will perform better, but won't be a very good price/performance.

[RASQ]

There are pictures of the back of the pcb, it's clearly a single gpu card.

 

As for the 960, I think that by the point you reach 4GB, the gpu won't have enough horsepower to process the graphics, but it certainly does have enough power to use more than 2GB. The problem with all previous card with double the memory, is that the price difference is far greater than the performance difference. My guess is that it will perform better, but won't be a very good price/performance.

 

Shadow of Mordor requires 3GB for high texture settings IIRC. If I'm playing something like modded Skyrim I can install a ton of texture packs. This will use more VRAM, but AFAIK it won't put much more strain on the processor. Sure, this may not apply to a whole lot of games at the moment but in a couple years, who knows? The price is the one thing I'm really concerned about. I guess I'll wait and see.

[incarnate]

the 4gb 960's main reason to exist is for sli. in sli 2 960s will definitely have the power to use up most of the 4gb of ram and not run like molasses. the 960 on its own is definitely fast enough for more than 2gb of ram.

 

the issue isn't so much the 128 bit bus (although that doesn't help) it is the fact that the gpu itself can't run settings that would take 4gb at a reasonable framerate. but again, for sli purposes it would be a much better to have 4gb of vram.

[D2ultima]

Everyone is saying that a 128 bit bus can't handle 4GB. The Titan X is 12GB and Anandtech is speculating that it will have a 384 bit bus which Linus said is "a very good bet" on the WAN show. If I'm understanding how this works, thats equivalent to 4GB with 128 bit. That means it must work then, right? It may not have been enough in the past but I'm under the impression that it's very dependant on the chip architecture.

You're 100% correct. 128-bit memory bus can indeed handle 4GB of vRAM. It could even handle 8GB; though the likelyhood of having a high enough memory clock to get the bandwidth needed to fill/empty 8GB on a 128-bit memory bus is low. 256-bit, 8GB vRAM cards exist as well on the mobile platform; both the 880M and 980M cards do this.

 

If you want to know more about vRAM, you can read the guide in my signature. vRAM sizes on cards is loosely tied to the memory bus width, in that multiples of vRAM need to be used in order to keep all the memory "fast". So 128-bit and 256-bit and 512-bit memory buses need: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, etc of vRAM. 192-bit and 384-bit memory buses need: 384MB, 768MB, 1.5GB, 3GB, 6GB, 12GB, etc of vRAM.

 

GTX 960 shoulda had 3 GB, but nooo...

That'd require it to have a 96-bit or 192-bit memory bus; the former being way too slow for anything "gaming" class and the latter likely being rather high for its core count etc. The card's also named badly; it should have been the "950" or "950Ti" at best, in my opinion, with the specs it has. 

 

Shadow of Mordor requires 3GB for high texture settings IIRC. If I'm playing something like modded Skyrim I can install a ton of texture packs. This will use more VRAM, but AFAIK it won't put much more strain on the processor. Sure, this may not apply to a whole lot of games at the moment but in a couple years, who knows? The price is the one thing I'm really concerned about. I guess I'll wait and see.

Yes, 3GB for "high" with everything else turned up and 5.4GB on "ultra" with everything else turned up, if I remember correctly. At 1080p. And yes, you know what you're talking about with regards to how vRAM works. High resolution textures eats up vRAM but doesn't actually do much to the strain on the core. Unless higher resolution textures is a setting bundled with "texture quality", raising texture resolution doesn't actually do much more than eat up more vRAM.

[Guest]

If a 4GB Gtx 960 comes out I will be doing a comparison against the 2gb model (hopefully of the same brand) as fast as possible so you guys will know for sure.

Honestly though, I think it will help somewhat in games like Shadow of Mordor but it still wont beat a 280x, purely because the 280x is just a more grunty card, although it does require more power and puts out much more heat!

[dandrix]

You're 100% correct. 128-bit memory bus can indeed handle 4GB of vRAM. It could even handle 8GB; though the likelyhood of having a high enough memory clock to get the bandwidth needed to fill/empty 8GB on a 128-bit memory bus is low. 256-bit, 8GB vRAM cards exist as well on the mobile platform; both the 880M and 980M cards do this.

 

If you want to know more about vRAM, you can read the guide in my signature. vRAM sizes on cards is loosely tied to the memory bus width, in that multiples of vRAM need to be used in order to keep all the memory "fast". So 128-bit and 256-bit and 512-bit memory buses need: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, etc of vRAM. 192-bit and 384-bit memory buses need: 384MB, 768MB, 1.5GB, 3GB, 6GB, 12GB, etc of vRAM.

 

That'd require it to have a 96-bit or 192-bit memory bus; the former being way too slow for anything "gaming" class and the latter likely being rather high for its core count etc. The card's also named badly; it should have been the "950" or "950Ti" at best, in my opinion, with the specs it has. 

 

Yes, 3GB for "high" with everything else turned up and 5.4GB on "ultra" with everything else turned up, if I remember correctly. At 1080p. And yes, you know what you're talking about with regards to how vRAM works. High resolution textures eats up vRAM but doesn't actually do much to the strain on the core. Unless higher resolution textures is a setting bundled with "texture quality", raising texture resolution doesn't actually do much more than eat up more vRAM.

Totaly agree about 950 Ti thingy.