4GB 960 worth it?

[AlexWJD]

First off, please do not recommend an R9 280X or above, as my CPU will bottleneck all higher tier cards, I've already figured that out

 

Should I return my 2GB 960 for a 4GB version? I know the benchmarks aren't exciting (more like disappointing) but I wanted to SLI in the future and am wondering if the 4GB variant will SLI better? 

[C1intFunWood]

2GB Will do you fine for 1080P gaming even the 970 only has 3.5GB + .5MB and it games fine with 4k gaming. OOOOOHHH SHOTS FIRED.

[othertomperson]

If you want to SLI in the future, yes. But that would be more powerful than the 280X you're wary of

[d3sl91]

What are you doing with it? What games/mods etc?

 

But my answer is tentatively: NO. 

[The Crazed Child]

good luck with that 128 bit bus

 

at most it will use 3GB VRAM

[TJarsun]

No, check this: 

[Hieb]

You won't notice an FPS difference in most games unless you push ultra textures and anti-aliasing in more recent titles. For example in Battlefield Hardline at max settings there's a significant difference between the 2GB and 4GB variants. So the 4GB version is probably better if you wanna play at higher in-game settings, however it's not gonna be enough to be playing triple A titles at 1440P or 4K smoothly because the memory bandwidth (even with Maxwell's improved memory architecture) is simply too low at 128-bit for such demanding things.

[Hieb]

good luck with that 128 bit bus

 

at most it will use 3GB VRAM

 

The bus is irrelevant to how much is used... the VRAM is used to store textures, texture mapping data, shadow mapping etc. The bus only affects throughput, although throughput and VRAM capacity aren't really related. The difference is with more VRAM you can store more of the data that the GPU will use on the card so that when it needs it, it's right there... if you don't have enough VRAM to store all this stuff, when it happens to need something that isn't in VRAM it has to access system RAM which causes delay (and that's where your game freezes for a quarter second or your fps drops from 60 to 15).

[SteveGrabowski]

No, check this: 

 

Why do people post that ridiculous benchmark for games on medium that don't use the extra VRAM? Here is a benchmark that does target more than 2GB of VRAM, and the results indicate it can make a real difference in some games, not much in others.

 

[xAcid9]

wait for DX12.

[AlexWJD]

If you want to SLI in the future, yes. But that would be more powerful than the 280X you're wary of

 

I know, when I come around to SLI'ing ill be upgrading my CPU, get a new case, all-in-one water cooler, and so on

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

imo no... you'll be upgrading the 960 faster than you realise...

[ErickS89]

I'd say upgrade the CPU and then upgrade the GPU later on.

[Zulkkis]

First off, please do not recommend an R9 280X or above, as my CPU will bottleneck all higher tier cards, I've already figured that out

 

Should I return my 2GB 960 for a 4GB version? I know the benchmarks aren't exciting (more like disappointing) but I wanted to SLI in the future and am wondering if the 4GB variant will SLI better? 

 

I don't understand why you wouldn't want a more powerful card if it costs less. R9 280X is exactly that.

 

Unless you have serious limitations in terms of power consumption, just get a 280X instead.

[Circs]

First off, please do not recommend an R9 280X or above, as my CPU will bottleneck all higher tier cards, I've already figured that out

 

Should I return my 2GB 960 for a 4GB version? I know the benchmarks aren't exciting (more like disappointing) but I wanted to SLI in the future and am wondering if the 4GB variant will SLI better? 

 

Why do people post that ridiculous benchmark for games on medium that don't use the extra VRAM? Here is a benchmark that does target more than 2GB of VRAM, and the results indicate it can make a real difference in some games, not much in others.

 

 

For SLI the 4GB will absolutely be a boon, and when we look at how the lowest dips are somewhat smoothed out with a single 4GB 960 I'd say the 4GB offers a compelling proposition if the price difference isn't too extreme.

[SteveGrabowski]

I don't understand why you wouldn't want a more powerful card if it costs less. R9 280X is exactly that.

 

Unless you have serious limitations in terms of power consumption, just get a 280X instead.

 

Nvidia cards seem to work much better with lower end CPUs due to driver overhead issues.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-review

 

[Zulkkis]

Nvidia cards seem to work much better with lower end CPUs due to driver overhead issues.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-review

 

 

Yes, the relative performance differences seem to imply that AMD cards require high-end CPUs to really get the most out of it.

 

That said, looking at the benchmarks, it's still no victory rush for the 960. And the cards in the comparison were 280 and 285, both slower than the 285X.

 

All things considered, it seems to me that the 285X is a better buy. Maxwell is great and all, but tbh the 960 is just not priced competitively. If it 960 was hitting closer to the higher-end of 750 Ti prices and had a more powerful 960 Ti alternative with a bit higher bus and 3GB VRAM to match at the current prices, now that'd make for a reasonable card.

[SteveGrabowski]

Yes, the relative performance differences seem to imply that AMD cards require high-end CPUs to really get the most out of it.

 

That said, looking at the benchmarks, it's still no victory rush for the 960. And the cards in the comparison were 280 and 285, both slower than the 285X.

 

All things considered, it seems to me that the 285X is a better buy. Maxwell is great and all, but tbh the 960 is just not priced competitively. If it 960 was hitting closer to the higher-end of 750 Ti prices and had a more powerful 960 Ti alternative with a bit higher bus and 3GB VRAM to match at the current prices, now that'd make for a reasonable card.

 

I would definitely pick a 280x ahead of a 960 if the OP was using it with an i5, i7, or Xeon E3. Believe me I'm not a big fan of the 960 after the 970 was so amazing and with the great midrange offerings from AMD as well as the R9 290, but Nvidia's DirectX 11 implementation is just so far ahead the weaker hardware wins big with a weaker CPU. If a 750 Ti is outperforming a 280 in combination with an i3 it's not much of a stretch to imagine a 960 should beat a 280x with an even weaker CPU.