I need your inputs on gtx 960 2gb

[Prysin]

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.

 

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.

 

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?!

because if you think about it. which company has been pushing the hardest to get these sort of functions into the "mainstream"...

AMD....

 

If Nvidia had their way, we would be using DX11 until the end of time. Because they could just keep milking this broken cow called the consumer market, for years to come, by just nerfing their old gen of hardware with drivers to "boost" their new hardware.

[don_svetlio]

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.

 

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.

 

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?!

Because console gamers use AMD - not only that - those sales are not the GPUs actively in use - those the amount sold each quarter - AMD's cards last longer (hur hur) with 7970s still being good for Ultra in games although they came out in 2011 - the usage is 60%:40% and the actual market share Nvidia hold is only 23% - intel hold 60% and AMD hold 17%.

As for EVGA - I've found their coolers quite good - especially the ACX 2.0+

[PlayStation 2]

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.

>physx

>gameworks

How about AMD's side?

GREAT OpenCL support (which is more useful than CUDA, which makes an assload of difference in things like Sony Vegas or coin mining), drivers at this point are better than Nvidia's, the VRAM can make a HUUUUGE difference if you do 3D work alongside gaming, the CPU horsepower requirement is pretty damn negligible, and need I mention actual support for OpenCL support?

 

Also your grammar is atrocious.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Also your grammar is atrocious.

Probably because i'm french and i speak 3 languages along side of english maybe? not a reason to be offensive about it!

...so the R9 390 is a better workstation card than the GTX970? well...great! who cares? 99% of the people buying these things including OP are doing it strictly for one thing: rendering modern video games at 1080p.

[PlayStation 2]

Probably because i'm french and i speak 3 languages along side of english maybe? not a reason to be offensive about it!

...so the R9 390 is a better workstation card than the GTX970? well...great! who cares? 99% of the people buying these things including OP are doing it strictly for one thing: rendering modern video games at 1080p.

And the 390 does that as good as the 970, but at 1440p and 2160p it can* slaughter it.

*cases may vary

[i_build_nanosuits]

And the 390 does that as good as the 970, but at 1440p and 2160p it can* slaughter it.

*cases may vary

this is indeed a very nice combo with freesync and 1440p monitor:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 390 8GB Video Card ($329.98 @ SuperBiiz)

Monitor: Acer XG270HU 144Hz 27.0" Monitor ($449.99 @ B&H)

Total: $779.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-01 12:52 EDT-0400

This too but it cost significantly more and will not perform as good in most situations, this monitor is IPS though so it looks better:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB 100 Million Edition Video Card ($339.99 @ B&H)

Monitor: Acer XB270HU bprz 144Hz 27.0" Monitor ($719.99 @ Amazon)

Total: $1059.98

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-01 12:54 EDT-0400

Some games just like more VRAM, i game at 1440p on a 3GB GPU and it gets vram starved at times in A FEW games (dying light and batman AK most noteably)

but for 99.5% of the games out there 3GB i found is still just fine for 1440p.

4GB and GTX980 would be ideal to run this monitor though and i do get your point the R9 390 will drive the Freesync panel better perhaps even closer to the 980 than to the 970 for a lot cheaper.

But, for someone looking to do 1080p gaming and has no plans on buying such a fancy expensive display IMHO the choice isn't that easy, both have pros and cons.

[Predator50]

Thanks for your inputs. 

I was able to find an asus gtxs 970 white http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121926 abit expensive than the zotac version but cheaper than the asus gtx 970 DCU II version.

what do you think of this card.

 

 

TIA.

[don_svetlio]

Thanks for your inputs. 

I was able to find an asus gtxs 970 white http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121926 abit expensive than the zotac version but cheaper than the asus gtx 970 DCU II version.

what do you think of this card.

 

 

TIA.

Worst possible 970 - That thing will be loud, hot and probably not achieve a good OC - it's likey going to be 10-15% slower than any 390.

The blower design means it will run @ 80-ish *C stock and there are thermal shots of the 960 Turbo by Asus that show the VRMs hitting 100*C - I can only imagine the 970 who has a higher TDP and power draw.

Asus Turbo 960 - the white spots are 100*C or higher

[i_build_nanosuits]

Thanks for your inputs. 

I was able to find an asus gtxs 970 white http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121926 abit expensive than the zotac version but cheaper than the asus gtx 970 DCU II version.

what do you think of this card.

 

 

TIA.

no no no don't get that card it's a terrible choice this card is for if you put in a fucking small system with no ventilation in the case. if you have a normal desktop PC do not even consider this card.

In fact i would skip asus all togheter for gtx970.

That cooler is terrible. the reference 970 is better.

THIS is at good price right now, EVGA super super clock:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00R3NK2LE/?tag=pcpapi-20

[Hiebly]

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

 

The GTX 960 and GTX 670 trade blows. In a lot of games the GTX 960 can even outperform the GTX 770, while in some games the GTX 670 beats the 960 by a good bit... I would guess that it depends on how much memory bandwidth the game requires but I could very well be wrong about the reason.

 

[don_svetlio]

The GTX 960 and GTX 670 trade blows. In a lot of games the GTX 960 can even outperform the GTX 770, while in some games the GTX 670 beats the 960 by a good bit... I would guess that it depends on how much memory bandwidth the game requires but I could very well be wrong about that

Older games like Crysis 1 tend to run like crap on a 960 cause those games don't use VRAM but max the memory controller which is puny on a 960.