I need your inputs on gtx 960 2gb

[Predator50]

I need you inputs or thoughts on the gtx 960 2g,

my budget is $200

Is this a good card?

what settings can it handle in 1080p resolution.

the zotac gtx 960 cost like $192 and the asus version cost like $231.

 

Games :

GTA V

witcher 3

batman arkham knight when it will be available again.

Hitman 2016

 

 

PS.

It is very hard to find a R9 380 here where i live and the only available amd card is a r9 370.

I was able to find a used reference r9 290x sapphire within my budget but i was thinking that since it has a reference design it will run very hot and will throttle a lot and the bnew once still sells like $ 450.

I just sold my gtx 670.

 

Thanks ...

[i_build_nanosuits]

for a 200$ budget i would look to find something used like maybe a R9 280X or HD7970 or GTX 680/770/780 i don't know...but the 960 is fairly weak if you can't find a 380 then i would look into used AMD cards for example.

 

EDIT: I see you own a GTX670 a worthy upgrade to that would be no less than a GTX 780 or R9 290 to be honest, anything bellow is pretty much certain to disapoint as it will not offer a very huge performance increase...a 280X with a good cooler if found at a good price considering you could re-sell your 670 could be worth it but i would save some more until you can afford a proper upgrade.

 

As you can see here (and you can compare many GPU's to get an accurate idea of performance) a R9 290 would be a nice upgrade to a 670:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1068?vs=1349

 

EDIT 2: Also batman arkham knight you can find keys on G2A (legit) for as low as 13$...i paid 15$ for mine, worth every penny...awesome game IMHO.

[GDRRiley]

Overpriced. Your GTX 670 is about the same in performance about the 960 - perhaps a bit better.

No a 960 will be a 670 just by a bit

[Atmos]

Ah, the Phillipines, yes the 960 is a solid card. For that price, you won't find anything better, unless is second hand and a great deal.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Ah, the Phillipines, yes the 960 is a solid card. For that price, you won't find anything better, unless is second hand and a great deal.

he already own a 670 which is about the same performance...

[Atmos]

he already own a 670 which is about the same performance...

 

About, but not quite. The difference is there, just not huge. If he was looking to upgrade, even if its only a 10% improvement, then the 960 is the best card he can get in that budget.

[i_build_nanosuits]

About, but not quite. The difference is there, just not huge. If he was looking to upgrade, even if its only a 10% improvement, then the 960 is the best card he can get in that budget.

would you go out and spend 200$ to upgrade GPU horsepower by roughly 10%?

[Atmos]

would you go out and spend 200$ to upgrade GPU horsepower by roughly 10%?

 

If i really, really needed the performance increase. Yes.

 

If i could wait, and save up 50$ more, then no. There are better options at that point.

[Predator50]

thou there is a zotac gtx 970 but the price is $280 and the r9 380 price is the same as the gtx 960 but i have to play for  shipping which cost $20 and have to wait for 3 to 5 days just to arrive.

[squirtle4287]

thou there is a zotac gtx 970 but the price is $280 and the r9 380 price is the same as the gtx 960 but i have to play for  shipping which cost $20 and have to wait for 3 to 5 days just to arrive.

Patience is a virtue - person who has a 970

 

seriously, 3-5 days? That's nothing! Just order the 970 and wait, the performance to price of the 970 is up there. 

[don_svetlio]

thou there is a zotac gtx 970 but the price is $280 and the r9 380 price is the same as the gtx 960 but i have to play for  shipping which cost $20 and have to wait for 3 to 5 days just to arrive.

R9 380 is about 15% faster than a 960 and even a throttling 290X will be about 20% faster than a 960

[Predator50]

R9 380 is about 15% faster than a 960 and even a throttling 290X will be about 20% faster than a 960

thanks for the info i will just save up for the zotac 970. 

[Dabombinable]

R9 380 is about 15% faster than a 960 and even a throttling 290X will be about 20% faster than a 960

But lets be honest, unless they were using a custom loop, you'd have to be nuts to buy a blower 290X.

[xAcid9]

670 to 960? Sidegrade at best unless the game you'll be playing is a heavy Gamewrecks title.

 

Try find a 780/290. 

[don_svetlio]

thanks for the info i will just save up for the zotac 970. 

at that point a 390 is a better option

[i_build_nanosuits]

at that point a 390 is a better option

i beg to differ.

The R9 390 is only 4% faster overall over a stock GTX970...but the GTX970 has plenty of headroom for overclocking where as the R9 390 has not, it's already a ''factory'' overclocked GPU pushed much closer to it's limit than the GTX970.

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-AMD-R9-390/2577vs3481

The R9 390 also is less energy efficient and lacks many features found on the GTX 970 such has the hability to process advanced physX in games and gameworks advanced graphics in the games that support it. Also AMD DX11 are much less efficient than nvidia ones and require more CPU horsepower to reach maximum performance and good framerates on those higher-end AMD GPU's.

In the other hand what you get with AMD is very slightly better performance at out of the box settings, and more VRAM.

[don_svetlio]

i beg to differ.

The R9 390 is only 4% faster overall over a stock GTX970...but the GTX970 has plenty of headroom for overclocking where as the R9 390 has not, it's already a ''factory'' overclocked GPU pushed much closer to it's limit than the GTX970.

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-AMD-R9-390/2577vs3481

The R9 390 also is less energy efficient and lacks many features found on the GTX 970 such has the hability to process advanced physX in games and gameworks advanced graphics in the games that support it. Also AMD DX11 are much less efficient than nvidia ones and require more CPU horsepower to reach maximum performance and good framerates on those higher-end AMD GPU's.

In the other hand what you get with AMD is very slightly better performance at out of the box settings, and more VRAM.

A 1200MHz 390 outperfroms a 1447MHz 970 by anywhere from 3%-10% - both cards can OC - not only one. Most MSI 390s hit 1200.

A select few games actually use PhysX and devs are boycotting Gameworks - 2 dozen small and large developers have publicly spoke against Gameworks and called it a "Blackbox that locks down our game and prevents us from accessing certain things" - I wouldn't really bring that up as a selling point when developers are not really eager to use it - so far only 3-4 games use it and 1 of those is broken beyond redemption.

[i_build_nanosuits]

A 1200MHz 390 outperfroms a 1447MHz 970 by anywhere from 3%-10% - both cards can OC - not only one. Most MSI 390s hit 1200.

A select few games actually use PhysX and devs are boycotting Gameworks - 2 dozen small and large developers have publicly spoke against Gameworks and called it a "Blackbox that locks down our game and prevents us from accessing certain things" - I wouldn't really bring that up as a selling point when developers are not really eager to use it - so far only 3-4 games use it and 1 of those is broken beyond redemption.

yet...3% to 10%...extra power consumption and driver supports alone justify this lost IMHO...you can add to that shadowplay, VXGI, MFAA, DSR and color compression and you quickly understand why the maxwell GPU is a much more advanced one than the hawaii chip found in the R9 390 which came out in 2013...

Also, this 3% extra performance isnt even consistent across the board, there are many games in which the 970 outperform the 390 because of better drivers on nvidia side, those cards actualy trade blows from game to game.

Also, the game you refer to is batman the arkham knight which has been patched and run fine now, only you do require a 980ti to make full use of the gameworks features as it's just plain too demanding for anything else even at 1080p.

Good reasons to pick the R9 390 would be:

1- You plan on getting a Freesync panel (those are greatly cheaper than Gsync counterparts so that's good)

2- You plan on gaming at 1440p or higher resolutions (8GB of VRAM is still 8GB of VRAM and that's defenetly a plus)

2- You plan on going dual-graphics and rolling off of those for a long ass time (8GB of VRAM is still 8GB of VRAM and that's defenetly a plus)

If you don't fit in any of those then i would think a GTX970 is a better option honestly especialy if the price is the same, 970 is also often cheaper.

[don_svetlio]

yet...3% to 10%...extra power consumption and driver supports alone justify this lost IMHO...you can add to that shadowplay, VXGI, MFAA, DSR and color compression and you quickly understand why the maxwell GPU is a much more advanced one than the hawaii chip found in the R9 390 which came out in 2013...

Also, this 3% extra performance isnt even consistent across the board, there are many games in which the 970 outperform the 390 because of better drivers on nvidia side, those cards actualy trade blows from game to game.

Also, the game you refer to is batman the arkham knight which has been patched and run fine now, only you do require a 980ti to make full use of the gameworks features as it's just plain too demanding for anything else even at 1080p.

Good reasons to pick the R9 390 would be:

1- You plan on getting a Freesync panel (those are greatly cheaper than Gsync counterparts so that's good)

2- You plan on gaming at 1440p or higher resolutions (8GB of VRAM is still 8GB of VRAM and that's defenetly a plus)

2- You plan on going dual-graphics and rolling off of those for a long ass time (8GB of VRAM is still 8GB of VRAM and that's defenetly a plus)

If you don't fit in any of those then i would think a GTX970 is a better option honestly especialy if the price is the same, 970 is also often cheaper.

VSR and DSR are the same - that is not a valid reason

R9 390 and 390X may not have compression but are not bandwidth starved (thus the large increases in performance after you get +500 on memory on a Maxwell card) and thus they are able to even the playing field with sheer engineering horse power

60W of Power consumption is as much as your light bulbs being on or off in the house (each being 10W) - it accumulates to 5$ yearly in some areas. Not really anything to write home about.

Drivers are better for Nvidia - not argument there.

Batman is nowhere near as good-looking as it should be for needing a 980 Ti/Fury X >.< - really - that game is an abysmal console disaster with Nvidia painted all over it - sorry but it was a fail - no way to redeem it. It still runs like crap on 960s and 970s from what I've heard

3%-10% is in DX11 - with DX12 at this point you can see that a 390 can actually match a 980 putting it 20% over a 970 for the same price. yeah.

[xAcid9]

i beg to differ.

The R9 390 is only 4% faster overall over a stock GTX970...but the GTX970 has plenty of headroom for overclocking where as the R9 390 has not, it's already a ''factory'' overclocked GPU pushed much closer to it's limit than the GTX970.

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-AMD-R9-390/2577vs3481

The R9 390 also is less energy efficient and lacks many features found on the GTX 970 such has the hability to process advanced physX in games and gameworks advanced graphics in the games that support it. Also AMD DX11 are much less efficient than nvidia ones and require more CPU horsepower to reach maximum performance and good framerates on those higher-end AMD GPU's.

In the other hand what you get with AMD is very slightly better performance at out of the box settings, and more VRAM.

 

"Stock"

 

Show me this "stock" benchmark of 970 vs 390.

[i_build_nanosuits]

-60W of Power consumption is as much as your light bulbs being on or off in the house (each being 10W) - it accumulates to 5$ yearly in some areas. Not really anything to write home about.

-Batman is nowhere near as good-looking as it should be for needing a 980 Ti/Fury X >.< - really - that game is an abysmal console disaster with Nvidia painted all over it - sorry but it was a fail - no way to redeem it. It still runs like crap on 960s and 970s from what I've heard

-3%-10% is in DX11 - with DX12 at this point you can see that a 390 can actually match a 980 putting it 20% over a 970 for the same price. yeah.

-Power consumption i was thinking more in terms of heat output, noise output and overclocking capabilities...not actual cost.

-i play batman AK at 1440p on a single GTX 780 and it run's absolutely fine therefore it really isnt that bad (on nvidia GPU that is)

-no games released as of yet, nvidia has yet to realease ANY game ready drivers for a game under DX12 therefore WE DON'T KNOW how nvidia GPU will perform under DX12 in the long run...when they start kicking out actual DX12 optimised drivers in the form of newer game ready drivers for shortly upcoming DX12 games, and those games actualy launch THEN we will know.

 

 

"Stock"

Show me this "stock" benchmark of 970 vs 390.

Touché, the GTX970 NEVER run at stock settings because out of the box even a reference card will have turbo boost 2.0 pushing the clocks automaticaly for you.

[Mikjul]

Yo Nano, i dare you to square up to my 390.

[Prysin]

-Power consumption i was thinking more in terms of heat output, noise output and overclocking capabilities...not actual cost.

-i play batman AK at 1440p on a single GTX 780 and it run's absolutely fine therefore it really isnt that bad (on nvidia GPU that is)

-no games released as of yet, nvidia has yet to realease ANY game ready drivers for a game under DX12 therefore WE DON'T KNOW how nvidia GPU will perform under DX12 in the long run...when they start kicking out actual DX12 optimised drivers in the form of newer game ready drivers for shortly upcoming DX12 games, and those games actualy launch THEN we will know.

 

 

Touché, the GTX970 NEVER run at stock settings because out of the box even a reference card will have turbo boost 2.0 pushing the clocks automaticaly for you.

which again, all reviewers know. and their reviews still show the 380 beating the 960...

So unless ALL the reviewers are so underhanded that they FORCE the 960 to run a specific speed. It is "stock" in the sense of "not manually OC'd but with GPU Boost 2.0"

 

same applies with 970 vs 390, 980 vs fury, 980Ti vs FuryX....

[don_svetlio]

-Power consumption i was thinking more in terms of heat output, noise output and overclocking capabilities...not actual cost.

-i play batman AK at 1440p on a single GTX 780 and it run's absolutely fine therefore it really isnt that bad (on nvidia GPU that is)

-no games released as of yet, nvidia has yet to realease ANY game ready drivers for a game under DX12 therefore WE DON'T KNOW how nvidia GPU will perform under DX12 in the long run...when they start kicking out actual DX12 optimised drivers in the form of newer game ready drivers for shortly upcoming DX12 games, and those games actualy launch THEN we will know.

 

 

Touché, the GTX970 NEVER run at stock settings because out of the box even a reference card will have turbo boost 2.0 pushing the clocks automaticaly for you.

A Sapphire 390 runs at 74*C

An EVGA 970 runs at 71*C

TDP is the imagination of the engineer usually - no concrete table/chart/source to compare against

Well - Batman can't run on 960s - believe it or not

Nvidia can't optimize for DX12 cause their cards don't support the feature that AMD gets its boost from - Nvidia won't just give you a 980 DX12 edition when an actual DX12 game comes out next year.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Yo Nano, i dare you to square up to my 390.

i can't i only have a GTX780, but a 970 will perform as well as your card overall in games...your card faster in some games and the 970 is faster in some others.

 

which again, all reviewers know. and their reviews still show the 380 beating the 960...

yes the R9 380 is noticeably better than the GTX960, no doubt the 380 is faster in every games across the board, not the case fot the 390 vs 970 which trade blows depending on the games and driver optimisations.

 

A Sapphire 390 runs at 74*C

An EVGA 970 runs at 71*C

TDP is the imagination of the engineer usually - no concrete table/chart/source to compare against

Nvidia can't optimize for DX12 cause their cards don't support the feature that AMD gets its boost from - Nvidia won't just give you a 980 DX12 edition when an actual DX12 game comes out next year.

sapphire cooler is top of the line and EVGA coolers are amongst the worst, no doubt about these numbers they are right.

And i'm 100% convinced that when nvidia will launch proper DX12 drivers the performance will be noticeably better than what it looks like right now, the 980 will at least be on par with the 390X. Also, Async compute is supported on AMD GPU,s big deal how would that make it ways and be widely adopted in games if only 20% of the users are on AMD compatible GPU's?!