GTX 960 4Gb Edition

[charlesr]

How is this card for GTA V? Also wondering what cpu i should pair with it. (LGA 1150)

[i_build_nanosuits]

it's very hard to recommend the GTX 960 because AMD has the R9 380 which is a good 10 to 15% faster and cost about the same...get the R9 380 4GB instead and for CPU get a good intel quad-core your cheapest option is the i5-4460 and a cheap H97 motherboard...

[charlesr]

Thanks man, I have a z97 gaming 5 board right now. I'm kind of 50/50 on AMD cards though. Ive heard their drivers are worse.

[Whorax]

2 minutes ago, charlesr said:

Thanks man, I have a z97 gaming 5 board right now. I'm kind of 50/50 on AMD cards though. Ive heard their drivers are worse.

AMD's drivers have been no worse than Nvidia's as of late to my knowledge. I would recommend the 380 4GB as well. IMO there isn't an Nvidia card worth picking up for gaming right now unless you're getting into 980Ti territory.

[Chasem121]

2 hours ago, charlesr said:

Thanks man, I have a z97 gaming 5 board right now. I'm kind of 50/50 on AMD cards though. Ive heard their drivers are worse.

Considering nvidia drivers are letting you eject the gpu like you would a flash drive... The whole "AMD has worse drivers" thing is a meme.

 

Unless you are on linux, then that is correct.

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, charlesr said:

Thanks man, I have a z97 gaming 5 board right now. I'm kind of 50/50 on AMD cards though. Ive heard their drivers are worse.

It's debatable. But from what I've heard, AMD's drivers are pretty good.

 

And GeForce Experience is giving me a headache so NVIDIA isn't as squeaky clean as some claim.

[charlesr]

3 hours ago, Chasem121 said:

Considering nvidia drivers are letting you eject the gpu like you would a flash drive... The whole "AMD has worse drivers" thing is a meme.

 

Unless you are on linux, then that is correct.

thanks man

[Marinatall_Ironside]

I find it really intriguing that people here on the forums are solely suggesting AMD cards when there are alternatives to those cards. It's confirmation bias like one of the polls here on the forums. where after the GTX 950, it's all AMD up until the 980 Ti.

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by JurunceNK
Added link for proof.

[Siman]

4 minutes ago, charlesr said:

Thanks man, I have a z97 gaming 5 board right now. I'm kind of 50/50 on AMD cards though. Ive heard their drivers are worse.

what Whorax said my Nvidia computers have been having a bunch of issues as of late... my AMD rigs however have been running better and better seams like they got their stuff together. 

[jcastro_805]

You don't need the 4GB VRAM because the GTX 960 wont be able to take advantage of it anyways

[HKZeroFive]

10 minutes ago, JurunceNK said:

I find it really intriguing that people here on the forums are solely suggesting AMD cards when there are alternatives to those cards. It's confirmation bias like one of the polls here on the forums. where after the GTX 950, it's all AMD up until the 980 Ti.

?

 

There's no bias. It's proven that the R9 380 will perform better than the GTX 960. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

A R9 390 over the GTX 970 is debatable but at least it's justified.

 

Now the GTX 980 and the Fury or Nano. That's a tough one. The Fury will perform better at stock but the GTX 980 has more overclocking headroom. So it kinda varies.

 

Sure, people will fanboy but unless you have a good reason for picking a GTX 960 over the R9 380, I don't see your point.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

3 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

?

 

There's no bias. It's proven that the R9 380 will perform better than the GTX 960. I'm not sure what you're getting at. A R9 390 over the GTX 970 is debatable but at least it's justified.

It matters not. If someone prefers Nvidia and you suggest an AMD card, isn't that counterproductive, do you think? And yes I firmly believe there is bias towards AMD. The thread I posted in my last post proves it. ~4 out of 5 machines on the market is equipped with an Nvidia GPU, yet on these forums, that is turned 180-degrees around and it sort of looks like this: ~3 out of 5 machines on the LTT forums is equipped with an AMD GPU? Funny isn't it?

 

Quote

This forum is more of an AMD-den than TekSyndicate is. No wonder it's so polarising in here.

 

80% of the market uses Nvidia, yet the poll reflects the exact opposite. Goes to show how unrepresentative these forums are

I agree with this guy ^ These forums are unrepresentative of what the market looks like. If you want a true representation of what the market demographic is like, look at Google Finance is for. Look at NASDAQ.

[HKZeroFive]

32 minutes ago, JurunceNK said:

It matters not. If someone prefers Nvidia and you suggest an AMD card, isn't that counterproductive, do you think? And yes I firmly believe there is bias towards AMD. The thread I posted in my last post proves it. ~4 out of 5 machines on the market is equipped with an Nvidia GPU, yet on these forums, that is turned 180-degrees around and it sort of looks like this: ~3 out of 5 machines on the LTT forums is equipped with an AMD GPU? Funny isn't it?

 

I agree with this guy ^ These forums are unrepresentative of what the market looks like. If you want a true representation of what the market demographic is like, look at Google Finance is for. Look at NASDAQ.

Well, you have to factor alot things into it, and I wouldn't call this forum representative of the GPU market. The general consensus is that NVIDIA is better than AMD due to uninformed opinions. AMD's gotten a bad rep from things that they've already fixed (drivers and those rubbish stock coolers for the 290 and 290X are the two big ones). That and AMD's bad marketing which isn't helping at all (it's slowing improving but they've got a long way to go).

 

I'm not trying to defend fanboying but unless you can provide a good reason for picking a GTX 960 over a R9 380 for gaming, I really don't see your point at all. It's a proven fact that it simply performs better.

 

EDIT: I forgot to add that brand loyalty is stupid. I'd argue that it's the opposite to being counterproductive. In this situation, AMD is the better choice and people noted that to OP which he gladly accepted their advice.

 

It's our job to inform people on their choices. Whether they like it or not.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

33 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Well, you have to factor alot things into it, and I wouldn't call this forum representative of the GPU market. The general consensus is that NVIDIA is better than AMD due to uninformed opinions. AMD's gotten a bad rep from things that they've already fixed (drivers and those rubbish stock coolers for the 290 and 290X are the two big ones). That and AMD's bad marketing which isn't helping at all (it's slowing improving but they've got a long way to go).

 

I'm not trying to defend fanboying but unless you can provide a good reason for picking a GTX 960 over a R9 380 for gaming, I really don't see your point at all. It's proven facts that it performs better.

The reason why I would go with a GTX 950 is, one fact, better performance-per-watt (More performance with a given amount of watts). The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 watts, while the R9 380 has a TDP of 190 watts. That's 70 watts more for pretty similar performance. So no, I would consider the R9 380 to fare worse in PPW compared to the GTX 960, yet they are within the same price bracket ($200-$250). If I can get the best possible performance with the fewest watts consumed, you should go with that. And even reputable sources have said that AMD will be truly competitive when they can tame the power consumption to where it is in line with Nvidia's power consumption.

 

And I like to be able to maximize my performance while consuming as little power as I can. If the R9 Fury X has a TDP of 275 watts and the 980 Ti has a TDP of 250 watts, which one comes out on top? They're both neck-to-neck in terms of performance, yet it uses 25 watts less (which is marginal IMO). But if I had the choice, I'd pick the 980 Ti. I feel like power consumption isn't talked that much and everyone is focused on one thing: performance. Fuck power consumption, it don't matter to me. That's the mentality I'm seeing here.

 

But wait, how about the R9 390 vs. GTX 970. The GTX 970 has a TDP of 145 watts while the R9 390 has a TDP of 275 watts. The TDP gap here is so wide that you pretty much have a clear winner already (130 watt difference). And they perform roughly the same.

 

So where did you get this "uninformed opinions" from? And I can tell you that I have had a good track record with Nvidia and I never had a single driver issue as of yet. I clean install all drivers.

 

So at the end of the day, I would pick the GTX 960 for its lower power consumption, which also equals low heat output.

[HKZeroFive]

25 minutes ago, JurunceNK said:

The reason why I would go with a GTX 950 is, one fact, better performance-per-watt (More performance with a given amount of watts). The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 watts, while the R9 380 has a TDP of 190 watts. That's 70 watts more for pretty similar performance. So no, I would consider the R9 380 to fare worse in PPW compared to the GTX 960, yet they are within the same price bracket ($200-$250). If I can get the best possible performance with the fewest watts consumed, you should go with that. And even reputable sources have said that AMD will be truly competitive when they can tame the power consumption to where it is in line with Nvidia's power consumption.

 

And I like to be able to maximize my performance while consuming as little power as I can. If the R9 Fury X has a TDP of 275 watts and the 980 Ti has a TDP of 250 watts, which one comes out on top? They're both neck-to-neck in terms of performance, yet it uses 25 watts less (which is marginal IMO). But if I had the choice, I'd pick the 980 Ti. I feel like power consumption isn't talked that much and everyone is focused on one thing: performance. Fuck power consumption, it don't matter to me. That's the mentality I'm seeing here.

 

But wait, how about the R9 390 vs. GTX 970. The GTX 970 has a TDP of 145 watts while the R9 390 has a TDP of 275 watts. The TDP gap here is so wide that you pretty much have a clear winner already (130 watt difference). And they perform roughly the same.

 

So where did you get this "uninformed opinions" from? And I can tell you that I have had a good track record with Nvidia and I never had a single driver issue as of yet. I clean install all drivers.

 

So at the end of the day, I would pick the GTX 960 for its lower power consumption, which also equals low heat output.

So what I'm hearing is that you'd pick the GTX 960 over the R9 380 over power consumption? The heat output and power consumption difference is negligible. Why would I want to sacrifice 15% more performance for marginally more power and heat. The only situation which I'd concede to that argument is having a 400W PSU, and I seriously doubt that many people have those (and they're rarely decent quality). Otherwise, most people will have a sufficient PSU to handle both.

 

And onto your power consumption argument. If your PSU can handle it, what's to worry about? A few more dollars every year? Of course everyone wants performance, that's the reason why the GTX 950 is recommended over the R7 370 and the 980Ti over the Fury X. Like you said, nobody cares about a few more watts. What's the harm?

 

$200-250 is a huge price bracket, especially if you're on a budget. Considering you can get a R9 380X for that price (and occasionally a R9 390 if rebates are added), the GTX 960 will get crushed in performance. If you didn't notice, you could easily get a R9 380 below $200 which will still perform better than the GTX 960. A extra $20 might make or break someone's build. AMD is already competitive, look at the prices of the R9 380, 390, Fury and Nano!

 

On to that GTX 970 vs R9 390 argument. If you have a PSU that cannot handle the R9 390, then yes, the GTX 970 is the better choice. However, that price difference justifies a lot of forum members' choice over the GTX 970, and you can't deny the R9 390 is cheaper in most cases. Not to mention it's more suited to DX12 and the extra 8GB VRAM makes it enticing.

 

You didn't understand what I said about uninformed opinions. Many people prefer NVIDIA because of the bad rep AMD's being copping from their old drivers and their heat output. If people knew that AMD offered competitive products, that market share will be a whole lot different today. I can't say the same about myself, my GeForce Experience used to crash frequently. It's better now, but I still get that occasional crash here and then.

 

And on that note, your argument is based on the marginally more output of heat and power consumption which I completely disagree with (see points above), rather than performance and price and let's face it, are the only things most people really care about when building a gaming PC.

[Bane Killgrind]

Well JurunceNK there are legitimate reasons that niche forums are going to be polarised, 

 

I know that I'm an AMD fanboy, but that is specifically because of Nvidias seemingly anticompetitive practices in the past. The recent past. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/NVIDIA-Sabotaged-Our-Hardware-Performance-Witcher-3-AMD-Says-72041.html

 

Of course, this is only claims from AMD, so maybe we need a more neutral source, like this video 

 

Even if they aren't doing anything illegal, the strategies they are using hurt PC gamers by fragmenting software support, which slows down advancements in graphics, which means the only way better graphics can be achieved is by buying newer, more expensive video cards every few years.

 

That sucks, and I'm not giving my money to someone that plays ball that way.

 

[Marinatall_Ironside]

2 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

You didn't understand what I said about uninformed opinions. Many people prefer NVIDIA because of the bad rep AMD's being copping from their old drivers and their heat output. If people knew that AMD offered competitive products, that market share will be a whole lot different today. I can't say the same about myself, my GeForce Experience used to crash frequently. It's better now, but I still get that occasional crash here and then.

 

Which is why I asked you to clarify that point. And yes, a few dollars per month on the electric bill matters to me because when you add that few dollars per month to an annual basis, it starts to add up. And I would much rather put that extra bucks towards something like paying off other bills.

 

And yes I would agree with one of your points I quoted you here. The vast majority of people don't participate on some kind of tech forums to become informed. Many buy without first doing research and make the most rational purchase decision.

[HKZeroFive]

5 minutes ago, JurunceNK said:

Which is why I asked you to clarify that point. And yes, a few dollars per month on the electric bill matters to me because when you add that few dollars per month to an annual basis, it starts to add up. And I would much rather put that extra bucks towards something like paying off other bills.

 

And yes I would agree with one of your points I quoted you here. The vast majority of people don't participate on some kind of tech forums to become informed. Many buy without first doing research and make the most rational purchase decision.

I'm sure most people will still prioritise performance and price over power consumption builds. Power consumption only adds to about maybe around $5 more per month? Kind of negligible if you ask me considering what other things you usually buy (shopping for groceries, buying food etc.).

[Marinatall_Ironside]

4 minutes ago, Bane Killgrind said:

Well JurunceNK there are legitimate reasons that niche forums are going to be polarised, 

 

I know that I'm an AMD fanboy, but that is specifically because of Nvidias seemingly anticompetitive practices in the past. The recent past. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/NVIDIA-Sabotaged-Our-Hardware-Performance-Witcher-3-AMD-Says-72041.html

 

Of course, this is only claims from AMD, so maybe we need a more neutral source, like this video 

-snip-

 

Even if they aren't doing anything illegal, the strategies they are using hurt PC gamers by fragmenting software support, which slows down advancements in graphics, which means the only way better graphics can be achieved is by buying newer, more expensive video cards every few years.

 

That sucks, and I'm not giving my money to someone that plays ball that way.

 

Well I can give you a good strategy on how to sway the majority of people (that is to say those who don't participate on some tech forums) to getting an AMD GPU over an Nvidia GPU? Pretty obvious here, get 'em on the tech forums. Inform them. Let's face it, the majority are ill-informed. I feel like we are the most informed.

 

And no, I don't watch that kind of poison here. It puts a bad taste in my mouth. I let nature take its course. And I do agree, even Linus has said this. Even though me and him prefer Nvidia GPUs, it's scary to see these things coming now (such as signing up on GeForce Experience, which BTW I did not do at all) since they control the vast majority of the market, so I wholeheartedly will agree that Nvidia needs some form of regulation so they don't do these kinds of things like what were seeing here.