Why the GTX 960 isn't bad

[AlexWJD]

You mean like Hardline?

 

Nah Hardline was actually downgraded graphics wise from BF4, damn consoles

[SteveGrabowski]

4) Hardware. This is short, but some lower-end CPU's (like my pentium) will bottleneck the R9 280X, but not the GTX 960. Again, minor, as most people will be going for i3's and i5's (FX's)

 

To me the 960 makes most sense in this point. It's unquestionably the best card out there for dual cores thanks to the low overhead in Nvidia's DX11 drivers.

[R_Golden]

I didn't factor rebates because

1) they are a pain in the ass

2) they dont last forever

Thank you! I absolutely hate when people factor in rebates.

[SteveGrabowski]

As for future proofing, I don't mind spending a few bucks for something that might last a little longer, e.g., spending $25 more for a Xeon E3-1231v3 over an i5-4690 for hyperthreading since games are targeted towards octacore consoles now, and thus the Xeon E3 should last a little longer. But for example when EVGA was offering to allow 970 owners to step up to 980s for the difference in price there was no way I was going to blow $220 just because the 980 was more future proof with all 4GB of VRAM running full speed instead of the 3.5GB on my EVGA 970.

[xDownSetx]

Nah Hardline was actually downgraded graphics wise from BF4, damn consoles

Well it's not like Hardline has it anywhere else either.  The game is a circus.

[AlexWJD]

Edited to clear up questions

[Nakano2k1]

People trash the GTX 960 here because apparently its "bad" and "overpriced" among other insults. My post here is not to hate on anyone, be a fanboy, or cause an uproar, but to show that the GTX 960 is actually pretty awesome. 

 

 

Honestly, this is a pointless thread. Why wouldn't you just post your own review? Spent 2 minutes of my life that i'll never get back reading this ridiculous thread.

[Hieb]

The 2GB VRAM doesn't bother me at all. If people have no problem recommending a GTX 750 Ti 2GB to someone who wants to play games at 1080P, perhaps at high settings at 30 fps , why would a GTX 960 for high settings 60 fps be a bad buy?

 

Worst case scenario, disable anti-aliasing and ultra textures in some games. I don't know of any games besides Shadow of Mordor with ultra texture pack enabled that would be a problem, and in this case you can just run it on high textures instead and the game still looks great and plays great. The performance is between an R9 280 and R9 280X (in some games it performs as well as a GTX 770 / R9 280X), so having to turn down textures from ultra to high in a game or two would not be a dealbreaker for me.

[Briggsy]

the problem is that a 960 doesn't really compare to a 280x, but more to a stock 280. factor in that each mhz increase on the core for tahiti > each mhz increase for maxwell, and 3GB Ram w/ 384bit bus on the 280, which puts the 960 in a lower tier.

[Hieb]

I don't understand why people discount rebates. Are people here that lazy that they can't take 5 minutes to fill out and mail a rebate form? I used rebates in building my system and they saved me a ton of money to get pretty nice components at the prices of cheap crap (e.g., my $23 Antec psu or my $27 Antec case).

 

I don't bank on rebates because many of them were not fulfilled or a rebate slip was never sent with my order. I'll take advantage of it if it's there, but if I cannot spend more than $100 on something, I'm not gonna buy something that's $120 with a $40 rebate, because I've been burned before.

[thuffman15]

They're making 4gb versions now. At least that's what it says on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Dual-Link-Graphics-02G-P4-2966-KR/dp/B00SC6HAS4/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1427256217&sr=1-1&keywords=gtx+960

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

"960 last longer" ????

 

Wouldn't the 2GB limit the 960? Games these days are starting to go over 2GB vram usage even in 1080p

[Bhav]

Only major flaw with it is that its a 128 bit bandwidth card. Had it been 256, or even just 196 bit which would allow 3 Gb, it would have had much better performance.

[themaniac]

Only major flaw with it is that its a 128 bit bandwidth card. Had it been 256, or even just 196 bit which would allow 3 Gb, it would have had much better performance.

iirc nvidia did something that allowed it to support 3+gb of vram 

[Bhav]

It can support 2 and 4 Gb on 128 bit, but 3 Gb would need it to be 196 bit because of some kind of maths I dont understand.

[themaniac]

It can support 2 and 4 Gb on 128 bit, but 3 Gb would need it to be 196 bit because of some kind of maths I dont understand.

ok but there will be a 4gb version from evga

[applesuxD]

Please read before commenting

People trash the GTX 960 here because apparently its "bad" and "overpriced" among other insults. My post here is not to hate on anyone, be a fanboy, or cause an uproar, but to show that the GTX 960 is actually pretty awesome.

I wanted to compare the GTX 960 to something that outperforms it, so I went with the R9 280X. The GTX 960 beats the R9 280 more times than not so I chose not to use that.

Price: (I kept out rebates because they change and are not what the prices stay at)

• The cheapest GTX 960 at the moment is the Gigabyte Overclocked GTX 960 for $199. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SD9KZA0/?tag=pcpapi-20

• The cheapest R9 280X is the XFX DoubleDiss for $240: Link here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150678&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

• videocardbenchmark.com says that the GTX 960 is a better price-to-performance value than the R9 280X.

• http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html#

• http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+960

Performance:

Now this is where the R9 280X wins. There is no doubt that the AMD card is better. However, I have a few points to make.

1) Overclocking. The GTX 960 is very capable at overclocking, and while many people will say overclocking is not "fair" in a comparison. If so, then why do respected and experienced people like Linus and Jayz always do their reviews with the card overclocked? I'll leave this on that note.

2) Futureproof. Many respected members here say it (better than I) futureproofing is a joke. (Upgrade-ability and upgrade path are different) You buy for today and today only. However, for people that really need to know which will last, here is my answer (which in no means is right). The GTX 960 will "last longer" than the R9 280X due to newer architecture. Both cards, however, will run out of juice before their memory size ever becomes an issue.

3) Power/Heat. Now this is sometimes completely irrelevant for some people, but I do find it important sometimes. The GTX 960 has a power draw of nearly half the R9 280X's, at 120W and 230W. Heat is around 5 degrees different.

4) Hardware. This is short, but some lower-end CPU's (like my pentium) will bottleneck the R9 280X, but not the GTX 960. Again, minor, as most people will be going for i3's and i5's (FX's for AMD)

5) FPS: aka here is where I list benchmarks. But seriously, the GTX 960, even though not as "good" as the 280X, is still a very capable card. And it does not deserve the constant hate it gets.

• http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-4.html

• Here is a an article between the GTX 960 and R9 280X. The GTX 960 only lags behind a bit, and keeps in line with the R9 285 (which can be the same price, its very up and down)

• http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1422878645wFyjwPZgEn_6_3.gif

• Here is a GTX 960 overclocked against OC'd R9 285 and GTX 760. (full article here:http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/02/02/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_overclocking_review/1#.VRGPK_nF_uMvery interesting) Above 60FPS in BF4, with Ultra settings and 2X AA. This is the MSI version, but even at its $200 or so price tag, thats pretty damn impressive to me.

• http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-960/fc4-fps.gif

• Here is a benchmark in Far Cry with an OC'd GTX 960. (full review here http://techreport.com/review/27702/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-graphics-card-reviewed/5)It lags behind the R9 280X 9 frames.

Conclusion:

The GTX 960 is not a bad card.

When compared to a better card, i.e the 280X, it does not win, but still holds its ground. For 1080p, the GTX 960 is very capable. It handles anything you throw at it with a decent framerate, and when overclocked is an absolute beast from the east.

Whats my goal?

To stop the hate. You've probably noticed already that I do own a GTX 960, and let me first say this: this isn't buyer's remorse, or something of that sort. It just pains me when I browse through and see people calling it a piece of trash, and that even little R9 260X's blow it out of the water. The GTX 960 does have a place and is pretty awesome. I'm going to end this with some different points about the card, and hopefully help other people whom are looking at this and similar types.

GTX 960:

• $200
• Low power consumption (120W)
• Low heat output
• nVidia features
• beast overclocker
• brand new architecture
• 2GB 128bit

R9 280X:

• $240
• hefty power consumption (220W)
• Higher heat output of about 5 degrees
• AMD features
• Doesn't overclock as crazy, but still a bit there
• older architecture (rebrand of the 7970)
• 3GB 384bit

Cheers,

Alex

gtx 960 oc and 280x oc is pretty much the same, also less heat and some games actuly do better on nvidia due to optimization anyways

[Happypap55]

The 285 and 960 are neck and neck in performance and the 285 is only $169..

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/1790-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-game-fps-benchmark-review/Page-2

[MageTank]

The 960 never was a bad card. Nobody made fun of the card itself being bad, it was mocked because of the shoes it attempted to fill. It fails to serve as an upgrade card for so many GPU's. As it stands, the GTX 960 is not an upgrade to the following Nvidia cards: GTX 670, 680, 760, 770, etc. It is hardly an upgrade from the 750 and 750ti as both do exceptionally well at 1080p gaming on medium settings, and the 960 wont be going beyond that resolution either. It might do good at higher settings than the 750 Ti, but if you are buying a 960 because a higher card will bottleneck your build, i am going to assume you wont be running high settings anyways.

 

The GTX 960 is only ever a good decision when you are building on a budget, and do not have a current GPU that is decent for 1080p gaming. It's TDP was the big issue i had with it. With the vast performance difference of the 960 compared to the 970, I could not consider buying the 960 over the 970 in an ITX situation when the difference in performance was huge, and the TDP difference was only 20w. 

 

When we talk pure budget gaming, the 750 Ti is the obvious winner in this category due to the fact that its TDP is low enough for it to be amazing in any form factor of a machine (even terrible OEM cases that lack fans) and does not require a 6 pin connector. This puts the GTX 960 in a position where so many other GPU's could be better choices for the money spent. GTX 770's have dropped down to $200-$220. Newegg has sold a few GTX 780's for $250 recently. 

 

The only time i could ever find myself recommending a 960 to someone, is if they absolutely could not stretch their budget, even by a little bit. I just find it hard to tell someone to invest in a 960 when it will only be good for 1080p gaming, if that. Maybe a 4gb version once those come out, will be more viable. Atleast with those, you will be able to get another 4gb card in the future, and stretch your resolution slightly with SLI. 

[AlexWJD]

The 960 never was a bad card. Nobody made fun of the card itself being bad, it was mocked because of the shoes it attempted to fill. It fails to serve as an upgrade card for so many GPU's. As it stands, the GTX 960 is not an upgrade to the following Nvidia cards: GTX 670, 680, 760, 770, etc. It is hardly an upgrade from the 750 and 750ti as both do exceptionally well at 1080p gaming on medium settings, and the 960 wont be going beyond that resolution either. It might do good at higher settings than the 750 Ti, but if you are buying a 960 because a higher card will bottleneck your build, i am going to assume you wont be running high settings anyways.

 

The GTX 960 is only ever a good decision when you are building on a budget, and do not have a current GPU that is decent for 1080p gaming. It's TDP was the big issue i had with it. With the vast performance difference of the 960 compared to the 970, I could not consider buying the 960 over the 970 in an ITX situation when the difference in performance was huge, and the TDP difference was only 20w. 

 

When we talk pure budget gaming, the 750 Ti is the obvious winner in this category due to the fact that its TDP is low enough for it to be amazing in any form factor of a machine (even terrible OEM cases that lack fans) and does not require a 6 pin connector. This puts the GTX 960 in a position where so many other GPU's could be better choices for the money spent. GTX 770's have dropped down to $200-$220. Newegg has sold a few GTX 780's for $250 recently. 

 

The only time i could ever find myself recommending a 960 to someone, is if they absolutely could not stretch their budget, even by a little bit. I just find it hard to tell someone to invest in a 960 when it will only be good for 1080p gaming, if that. Maybe a 4gb version once those come out, will be more viable. Atleast with those, you will be able to get another 4gb card in the future, and stretch your resolution slightly with SLI. 

 

The GTX 960 is better than the GTX 760, and beats the GTX 670 and 770 when overclocked (against the 2gb variants). The 750ti is no where NEAR the GTX 960, hell when I upgraded from a GTX 660, which is better than the 750ti, I got roughly a 60% improvment. People exaggerate the 750 ti's ability. It is great for the price, but no where near the performance of the 760, 960, and so forth.   

[xAcid9]

The GTX 960 is better than the GTX 760, and beats the GTX 670 and 770 when overclocked (against the 2gb variants). The 750ti is no where NEAR the GTX 960, hell when I upgraded from a GTX 660, which is better than the 750ti, I got roughly a 60% improvment. People exaggerate the 750 ti's ability. It is great for the price, but no where near the performance of the 760, 960, and so forth.   

 

When all 3 overclocked or only 960?

[MageTank]

The GTX 960 is better than the GTX 760, and beats the GTX 670 and 770 when overclocked (against the 2gb variants). The 750ti is no where NEAR the GTX 960, hell when I upgraded from a GTX 660, which is better than the 750ti, I got roughly a 60% improvment. People exaggerate the 750 ti's ability. It is great for the price, but no where near the performance of the 760, 960, and so forth.   

 

You are out of your mind if you think an OC'd 960 is faster than a OC'd 770. Nowhere on the internet has this been the case. The 670 is basically a 760, and the performance boost of the 960 over the 760 has been proven to be less than 10% in most cases. Why would you spend another $200 for roughly the same performance? Yes, the 960 will perform better than a 750 Ti in terms of running ultra graphics (The 750 Ti wont max things, its more of a medium settings card) but as i stated before, if you are worried about your CPU bottlenecking anything higher than a 960, then its probably a bad CPU in the first place. 

 

The 750 Ti's price to performance and performance per watt is amazing, i do not see where you think people exaggerate its abilities. It is a damn fine card for what it was designed to do, and it, in my opinion, is what made Maxwell look promising.

 

The GTX 960 is not a bad card, but you are a fool if you think it is a viable upgrade for the 670, 680, 760, or 770.

[AlexWJD]

When all 3 overclocked or only 960?

 

Only GTX 960, at stock the 960 is not very good, a big flaw of the card

 

 

You are out of your mind if you think an OC'd 960 is faster than a OC'd 770. Nowhere on the internet has this been the case. The 670 is basically a 760, and the performance boost of the 960 over the 760 has been proven to be less than 10% in most cases. Why would you spend another $200 for roughly the same performance? Yes, the 960 will perform better than a 750 Ti in terms of running ultra graphics (The 750 Ti wont max things, its more of a medium settings card) but as i stated before, if you are worried about your CPU bottlenecking anything higher than a 960, then its probably a bad CPU in the first place. 

 

The 750 Ti's price to performance and performance per watt is amazing, i do not see where you think people exaggerate its abilities. It is a damn fine card for what it was designed to do, and it, in my opinion, is what made Maxwell look promising.

 

The GTX 960 is not a bad card, but you are a fool if you think it is a viable upgrade for the 670, 680, 760, or 770.

 

An overclocked GTX 960 will beat an unoverclocked GTX 770. I don't have any benchmarks as thats not a thing, and the only 960 vs 770 I can find is with some dumbo using a reference cards. As for the GTX 670 and 760, they both cost the same as a GTX 960, so why wouldn't you buy the better card? 

[MageTank]

Only GTX 960, at stock the 960 is not very good, a big flaw of the card

 

 

 

An overclocked GTX 960 will beat an unoverclocked GTX 770. I don't have any benchmarks as thats not a thing, and the only 960 vs 770 I can find is with some dumbo using a reference cards. As for the GTX 670 and 760, they both cost the same as a GTX 960, so why wouldn't you buy the better card? 

 

I do not think you are reading what i have been saying. The point of a 960 costing the same is irrelevant, i have been speaking in terms of upgrading. If you already own a 670 or 760, the 960 will not be an upgrade to either of those cards. I personally run an MSI reference based GTX 770 in a small ITX case, and its factory OC's make my card outperform even the EVGA FTW 960's. 

 

The point that I, and several others made during the launch of the 960 is that while it might be a fine card for someone needing a new GPU that only has a strict $200 budget, for most people that already invested in a kepler card or better, it wont make much sense to upgrade. If you even own a GTX 650, and you are enjoying medium settings at 1080p, you are probably better off saving up another $100 and grabbing a GTX 970, or an AMD equivalent for the better experience at higher resolutions. If you are upgrading to a 960 because going above that will result in a bottleneck, then perhaps keeping your current GPU, and upgrading your CPU or mobo would make more sense to help open up more options in the future. 

 

I had this similar discussion in the past, and i am pretty sure everyone agreed that the GTX 960 was just a bad purchase idea in general. Again, the 4GB models might be a better option, but the following thread was before the 4GB versions were released: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/296421-i5-4460-bottleneck-gtx-960/

[AlexWJD]

snip

 

I see. Sorry man, bit slow sometimes. As for upgrading, It could be viable. The 960 does better than the 760 and 670, and is a bit under or over the 770, depending whom you ask and what you look at. The upgrade could be there if you sold your old card and went for the 960. But that point is mostly mute. I think the 960 was made as an upgrade for more of the lower-tier cards, like the 660, 580, 750, and so forth. I personally upgraded from a GTX 660 to a GTX 960 and noticed 50-60% improvement, and I sold my 660 to pay for the 960, making it so I only spent about $80 to upgrade. I am extremely happy. Now If the GTX 960 went down in price $10-20 or so, then I think that would seal it as the best sweet spot card.