Did I win the Silicon Lottery?

[Ryan_68]

I have an EVGA GTX 960 SSC 4gb. From what I read, I would have to run Doom (2016) on medium-low settings to maintain 60 fps. I am getting 75 fps pretty solid, with lows around 60 and highs of 90+ as seen in the screen shots I posted.  I don't have my GPU-Z statistics on hand, but I know I have my core clocks at 1564mhz completely stable, I forget what I have the memory clocks at. Basically, this card is beast mode, out performing the average gtx 970. Why do so many people hate the 960 again? 

[don_svetlio]

Do you have AA enabled?

[Ryan_68]

No AA in the screen shots, with it on, drops 15 fps average.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Ryan_68 said:

No AA, in the screen shots, with it on, drops 15 fps average.

Then what are you bragging about? Max out AA and try then. Benches you see are done with max AA

[Ryan_68]

Max AA is pointless though, doesn't improve the jaggies all that much, but increases draw on the GPU massively. I run at 1440p down sampled to 1080 instead. 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Ryan_68 said:

Max AA is pointless though, doesn't improve the jaggies all that much, but increases draw on the GPU massively. I run at 1440p down sampled to 1080 instead. 

Unless you run the exact same settings a you see in 970 benches on YT (absolute max) then it's pointless to say "my 960 performs good" cause the 970 will likely push out 120fps if you remove AA from the equation.

[ShadowCaptain]

1 minute ago, Ryan_68 said:

Max AA is pointless though, doesn't improve the jaggies all that much, but increases draw on the GPU massively. I run at 1440p down sampled to 1080 instead. 

Well the benchmarks are generally done with it on, so its not fair to compare your results to the benchmarks

just be happy it plays nicely 

[Ryan_68]

As I said earlier, with AA on, FPS drops to 970 levels, around 60 average, lows of 50, highs of 80. That being said, AA is dated tech, down sampling produces better results with less draw on the GPU.

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_68 said:

As I said earlier, with AA on, FPS drops to 970 levels, around 60 average, lows of 50, highs of 80. That being said, AA is dated tech, down sampling produces better results with less draw on the GPU.

If the 960 was a miracle child that performs like a 970, don't you think we'd be creaming our pants over it? As it stands, unless you replicate every setting and spec of the 970 test build then comparing is useless.

[Prysin]

your 960 is shit. Cannot play game at native res. Cannot play with even 0.5x AA.

Get a R9 Fury or 980Ti or 1070

[Ryan_68]

I did bench it with AA, and mentioned FPS drops 15 on average, which puts it into the 970 range,  but you overlooked that. Also, I was saying I feel like I won the silicon lottery with the GPU. Not saying all 960's will perform at these levels.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Ryan_68 said:

I did bench it with AA, and mentioned FPS drops 15 on average, which puts it into the 970 range,  but you overlooked that. Also, I was saying I feel like I won the silicon lottery with the GPU. Not saying all 960's will perform at these levels.

970 with maxed AA runs at 100 average
Your 960 with maxed AA runs at what? 60?

 

[Paralectic]

Your 960 doesn't perform like a 970, thread.

Invalid comparisons are made.

 

[Andrew Sh]

11 minutes ago, Ryan_68 said:

As I said earlier, with AA on, FPS drops to 970 levels, around 60 average, lows of 50, highs of 80. That being said, AA is dated tech, down sampling produces better results with less draw on the GPU.

A smart gamer. Thank god there's others out there.
I don't see the point of all the AA when playing at higher resolution because it's not that important. I prefer getting solid 60fps and have the game look a tad bit worse than have any stutter or fps drops because I want it to look amazing.

 

Could probably get solid 60 fps on this game with a gtx 750ti if you turn off AA and turn down shadows a little bit.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Ryan_68 said:

I literally said, I benched it with AA, and FPS drops 15 on average, at which it is matching 970 levels. I also mentioned that I prefer no AA and to downsample instead, but you retards took that as, no AA invalid bench blah blah blah. Literally ignored the info I posted because you guys are fucking dumb shits who will buy whatever they are told to by linus. Fucking cucks.

"960 beats a 970" - from your post. No, it does not. In order for that to be true you must have no variables in your test

 

2 minutes ago, Andrew Sh said:

A smart gamer. Thank god there's others out there.
I don't see the point of all the AA when playing at higher resolution because it's not that important. I prefer getting solid 60fps and have the game look a tad bit worse than have any stutter or fps drops because I want it to look amazing.

 

Could probably get solid 60 fps on this game with a gtx 750ti if you turn off AA and turn down shadows a little bit.

The discussion isn't about AA - it's about flawed testing methodology

[TheElt]

I'm sorry, but no, there's no chance a 960 can beat a 970 unless the 970 is massively underclocked. Taking results from Techspot, their 970 hit 100fps maxed out, with the 960 hitting a little over 60fps

 

[Ryan_68]

and I posted the info accordingly, you chose to ignore it. Not my fault you are a retard and failed to comprehend that. as for saying the 960 is better than a 970, I said THIS 960 as in my personal GPU which I have overclocked to insane levels, is outperforming the average gtx 970, but once again, comprehension is obviously beyond you. 

[don_svetlio]

10 minutes ago, Ryan_68 said:

and I posted the info accordingly, you chose to ignore it. As for saying the 960 is better than a 970, I said THIS 960 as in my personal GPU which I have overclocked to insane levels, is outperforming the average gtx 970.

Insane levels? Nah - most 960s reach 1450 core with ease and almost all of those go to 1500. You need a 2Ghz 960 to even begin to hallucinate that you could come close to a 970.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[Godlygamer23]

If the insulting does not stop, this thread is being locked. Treat everyone here with dignity and respect. 

[TheElt]

Mate, your overclock isn't even insane. A 960 hitting 2100MHz core in Fire strike scores 1500 points less than a 970 hitting 1450MHz

 

A 970 does doom at around the 100fps mark average, you say you hit 75fps, that's slower no matter how you look at it

[Mr.Meerkat]

 

26 minutes ago, Ryan_68 said:

and I posted the info accordingly, you chose to ignore it. As for saying the 960 is better than a 970, I said THIS 960 as in my personal GPU which I have overclocked to insane levels, is outperforming the average gtx 970.

Hehe...basically all 970 can clock past 1400Mhz where the 1500Mhz+ OC on your 960 won't do shit...

 

30 minutes ago, Ryan_68 said:

I literally said, I benched it with AA, and FPS drops 15 on average, at which it is matching 970 levels. I also mentioned that I prefer no AA and to downsample instead, no AA invalid bench blah blah blah.

Because the 970 even at stock speeds will beat your OCed 960...doesn't matter whether it has AA or not (not your opinion), everything has to be exactly the same (same drivers, same game settings, preferably same CPU ect. but obviously not the GPU ) so please stop making a fuss.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[Dackzy]

Just keep telling yourself this.

[Bhav]

I couldn't believe the amount of ignorance, and then the OP is banned.

 

I didn't have to engage him, but I wish I still could.