cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
So an over clocked GTX 960 is pretty close to a GTX 680.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GTX 960 specs officially announced, 2.3Tflops, 2GB, 128-bit
- Thread starter Ricky Ricardo
- Start date
So an over clocked GTX 960 is pretty close to a GTX 680.
No. I mean by taking full advantage of the chips. A console can max out old games. I want to see someone build tomorrow's game engines that can only work with the powerful expensive machines. This way, systems with low end tech have something to shoot for.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Which can also be overclocked
Comparing overclocked gpus to stock ones makes no sense
on topic; this card seems both misnamed and mispriced.
Barely being faster than the now ancient hd7950, costing 200 euros...
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_g1_gaming_review,14.html
Even with these benchmarks mercifully testing games at only 1080p no AA (at higher resolutions the gap between the 960 and a 7970 will widen a lot due to the gimped memory bandwidth) it doesn't look good.
People did and do use their 7970s to game at 1440p or with some downsampling btw...
Should've been called a 950 and should've been ~130 euros
A 960 being equivalent (within margin of error) to a 760, years later (and gimped at higher resolutions) makes no sense.
This is the new geforce 4 mx
Dictator93
Member
GPU utilization is rarely a problem on PC and even less so on consoles. CPU utilization though is a different story.
But if you mean using hardware extensions... then I can understand your point.
It makes people feel better or something. Who knows.
Stock to stock TechPowerUp put the 960 as 5% behind a 680 at 1080p.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I'm trying to understand what kind of performance I could get out of this by comparing benchmarks that include the GTX 680 as this card is so new. There are not a lot of benchmarks about.
In that context. I feel it makes perfect sense.
SneakyStephan
Banned
It makes no sense, compare it to a an overclocked 680 then, or an overclocked 670 or whatever card you want to compare it to.
Ricky Ricardo
Member
Man, I am so torn.
I want to upgrade my GTX 660, but I'm unwilling to spend any more than $300. Also, for various reasons, I want nothing to do with AMD. The GT970 is a beautiful proposition, but I just can't move to buy it. The GTX960 is so right in so many ways because I'm not changing from 1080p until my 2016-2017 4K build. Save for VRAM, it really is the Sweet Spot™ for me personally.
I'll keep an eye on it and pray that Nvidia decides to get the 960 TI out quickly. Even though my motto is simply 1080p60/High (could care less about Ultra, custom settings FTW), I'm afraid even those might be too much for 2GB VRAM with The Witcher 3, The Division, Battlefront III, etc.
We'll see how the next 3 months or so play out. I like what I'm seeing with the 960.
I want to upgrade my GTX 660, but I'm unwilling to spend any more than $300. Also, for various reasons, I want nothing to do with AMD. The GT970 is a beautiful proposition, but I just can't move to buy it. The GTX960 is so right in so many ways because I'm not changing from 1080p until my 2016-2017 4K build. Save for VRAM, it really is the Sweet Spot™ for me personally.
I'll keep an eye on it and pray that Nvidia decides to get the 960 TI out quickly. Even though my motto is simply 1080p60/High (could care less about Ultra, custom settings FTW), I'm afraid even those might be too much for 2GB VRAM with The Witcher 3, The Division, Battlefront III, etc.
We'll see how the next 3 months or so play out. I like what I'm seeing with the 960.
LordOfChaos
Member
Not bad for its price point.
Haint
Member
Even ignoring the stock Vs. OC angle, that's really sad considering the 680 is 3 years old and can be had second hand for well under $200. That in and of itself probably represents an over valuation as they're primarily catering to a limited SLI market who HAS to have additional 680's and is willing to pay a little extra to get them.
In that case there's not a whole lot you can do right now besides waiting. Perhaps prices will down come once AMD brings out their new cards or Nvidia fills in more gaps.
That's a shame because the 290x is a fantastic card and can be found for sub 270$ quite often
The 960 is a terrible card with no future, the 280x is cheaper and quite better too, I just don't see who those cards are targetting (especially with the fact that they have to be overclocked to the max just to compete with stock cards.
This would be a different story if it was 130$ like the 750Ti it's trying to replace.
I didn't realize this was released today until I saw the announcement in the nVidia driver update.
I don't feel like there are a lot of great options out there at the moment for people who want something mid-range that is also decently future-proof. I have a 1080p monitor but I don't really play demanding games, so my GTX 460 has actually been more than fine until now. However, I also like playing with high / ultra textures (even if other settings are lower and the fps isn't optimal), so I definitely need an upgrade from 1GB - but even if 2GB is fine for now, it doesn't seem like it'll hold up over the next few years for games with more detailed textures.
I tried out a GTX 970 for a bit but it seemed like overkill for my needs, and I couldn't justify the extra cost.
Hopefully they release a version of the 960 with more memory, like 3GB or 4GB, and if they keep the price around $200 that should maybe fit what I'm going for.
I don't feel like there are a lot of great options out there at the moment for people who want something mid-range that is also decently future-proof. I have a 1080p monitor but I don't really play demanding games, so my GTX 460 has actually been more than fine until now. However, I also like playing with high / ultra textures (even if other settings are lower and the fps isn't optimal), so I definitely need an upgrade from 1GB - but even if 2GB is fine for now, it doesn't seem like it'll hold up over the next few years for games with more detailed textures.
I tried out a GTX 970 for a bit but it seemed like overkill for my needs, and I couldn't justify the extra cost.
Hopefully they release a version of the 960 with more memory, like 3GB or 4GB, and if they keep the price around $200 that should maybe fit what I'm going for.
Wouldn't the 128 bit memory bus cripple it in terms of being able to utilize the 3/4 jiggabytes?
I'm certainly no expert though, so I await some smarmy expert to prove me wrong.
LordOfChaos
Member
I agree with you, everyone clamoring for more RAM would find they've hit the bandwidth and chip performance limits first most of the time. There might be a few oddball titles with low chip performance requirements but high VRAM requirements, but in the vast majority of the games out there, I'd put the bill of materials cost of more video memory towards something else (first priority would probably be double the bus width).
Frickin 8x MSAA at frickin 3840 by frickin 2160 on ultra to start to get uncomfortable at 2GB. Granted Skyrim is far from the most demanding games, but if you're going to be playing games on this it will likely be at lower resolutions which will often cancel out the higher VRAM use of other games.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694-5.html
Dictator93
Member
The entirety of nextgen console games is built on the foundation of Consoles having 2-3 gigs of VRAM available and low grunt. 2gigs just aint gonna cut it for putting those textures up high where they were designed to be. Regardless of adding a layer of MSAA or increasing the accurary of an AO.
Like LordOfChaos said, just because a few not so great PC versions have come out recently that really bloated up the VRAM requirements, it doesn't mean 1 or 2GB cards have become obsolete. It all depends on the game. Some like having lots of bandwidth, some like having lots of VRAM and some like both. You could potentially slap on 8GB, but the GPU itself would be the bottleneck before all of that VRAM will be used.
Also don't get so hung up about the width of the memory controller. For example a 128-bit bus can still achieve the same bandwidth as one that's 256-bit wide as long as the memory is twice as fast. I mean that it's just a number that doesn't mean much on itself.
Eh, I played through Dragon Age: Inquisition with a 1GB GTX 460 on a 1080p monitor, and I definitely noticed lots of issues using ultra textures / mesh settings (and medium or custom settings on everything else) - textures would go missing and fail to load at several points. The issues mostly went away when I tested with a 2GB 760, and then with a 4GB 970, so I'm assuming the texture issues were related to VRAM limitations.
I don't know, maybe it's just my personal preference - I don't care much for AA or shadows, etc., but always want to use high / ultra textures, and I'm guessing 1GB doesn't cut it anymore even at 1080p and 2GB is the minimum. Which is fine for games that are out right now, but I worry about spending $200 on a card if there are games with more demanding requirements that come out within another year or so.
EDIT: heck, even playing Mass Effect 3, a 2012 release, I noticed moments where high textures took some time to load properly on a 1GB 460 at 1080p - so yeah, I'd think 2GB has been the bare minimum for high / ultra textures for a while, and "bare minimum" isn't a great selling point for a card.
LordOfChaos
Member
Again, it's all about how the bill of materials is spread. We can talk about hypothetical future games till we're blue in the face, but the fact is that every game we can test now and get real results on show that if you're running a GPU of this performance, you'll hit its limits before you hit 2GB limits the vast majority of the time. Check the Tomshardware article I linked.
I believe you, there's definitely edge cases. But again, spread of the BoM, that's one game compared to the many others that would have the opposite performance constraint, like every one tested in the article.
I agree with you, everyone clamoring for more RAM would find they've hit the bandwidth and chip performance limits first most of the time. There might be a few oddball titles with low chip performance requirements but high VRAM requirements, but in the vast majority of the games out there, I'd put the bill of materials cost of more video memory towards something else (first priority would probably be double the bus width).
Frickin 8x MSAA at frickin 3840 by frickin 2160 on ultra to start to get uncomfortable at 2GB. Granted Skyrim is far from the most demanding games, but if you're going to be playing games on this it will likely be at lower resolutions which will often cancel out the higher VRAM use of other games.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694-5.html
Is there something wrong with rivatuner/afterburner? Because I easily hit 1.5 gigs of VRAM usage at 1080p without mods on Skyrim. The same can be said for Far Cry 3 and 4, and quite a few others that I haven't cared to remember specifically. All I know is that I monitor VRAM usage on my OSD, and it's on 100% of the time.
That said, with higher textures coming out and open world games replacing linear levels, it's not hard to see 2 GB being below the minimum.
Dictator93
Member
2GB I do not see going below min spec (that means the dev is incompetent) for console ports. All they have to do it use mip 1 instead of mip 0 for the main textures to reduce VRAM loads significantly.
That said, this card would be waaaaay cooler with more VRAM.
New article (I think from IGN) came out about the 960 where Nvidia admitted it's animed at the DOTA/LOL audience and is mostly meant as an upgrade from the 660, not the 760.
Edit: http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/22/nvidia-unveils-the-gtx-960-impressions-benchmarks
Edit: http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/22/nvidia-unveils-the-gtx-960-impressions-benchmarks
Compsiox
Banned
So...are they going to make GPU's dedicated to certain game?
DayZ: Geforce 1337DYZ $199
Battlefield Hardline: Geforce 9111BFH $199
20 GPU Motherboard $799
MrCunningham
Member
Pretty nice benchmark comparison video from Tek Syndicate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMO9ohTQ3ds
The video compares the 960 in both single card and SLi mode to a GTX 970. The only real complaints come from the smaller 2GB framebuffer, but otherwise it seems pretty solid for the $200-$250 dollar level.
The video compares the 960 in both single card and SLi mode to a GTX 970. The only real complaints come from the smaller 2GB framebuffer, but otherwise it seems pretty solid for the $200-$250 dollar level.
R9 280x is a HD 7970, a card that has a TDP of 250 watts and can easily draw way over 300 watts. The people in the market for a card to play LoL or DOTA may not have a PSU suitable for a 2012 flagship GPU that can require over 25 amps on a 12v rail. It will also run hotter and will likely be louder than the 960.
The period we are in now with the aged 28nm process, means that improvements are mostly going to be in efficiency. Performance gains are not as great as they perhaps have been with previous design changes. This GPU is carrying a slightly optimistic price right now though.
I was thinking of upgrading my GPU, a lot of the technical press are really fawning over this card. Thanks to GAF users for pointing out it's low on vram so my PS4 would play the games better going forward as more games will be optimized for larger vram. Thanks GAF, you deflated the hype. 
R9 280~285 performance (depending on resolution) with power consumption only a bit higher than the R7 260X, this card is ideal to replace my aging HD6850, it's ideal for someone like me who doesn't want a high power consumption card and doesn't have a high resolution monitor (my current one is 1440x900).
Sorry for bumping an old-ish thread, but this was the only GTX 960-specific one I could find.
So from checking Newegg & Amazon, I guess the 4GB 960 models are finally starting to appear: EVGA has released a 4GB model at $240/$250:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487128
This comes close to a sweet-spot for me, though I think the price is still a bit much: I only do 1080p gaming, so the 970 seemed like overkill, but I was also concerned with buying a 960 2GB since so many games seem to drive up VRAM usage with ultra and high textures, etc.
So... at this point I guess my options are to get a standard 2GB 960 for $200, a 4GB 960 for around $240, or a 970 for around $330... I'm leaning towards the 4GB 960 if I can maybe get a good rebate or promo with it.
P.S. I guess there's no indication as to whether these are "actually" 4GB cards or 3.5GB cards like the 970...
So from checking Newegg & Amazon, I guess the 4GB 960 models are finally starting to appear: EVGA has released a 4GB model at $240/$250:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487128
This comes close to a sweet-spot for me, though I think the price is still a bit much: I only do 1080p gaming, so the 970 seemed like overkill, but I was also concerned with buying a 960 2GB since so many games seem to drive up VRAM usage with ultra and high textures, etc.
So... at this point I guess my options are to get a standard 2GB 960 for $200, a 4GB 960 for around $240, or a 970 for around $330... I'm leaning towards the 4GB 960 if I can maybe get a good rebate or promo with it.
P.S. I guess there's no indication as to whether these are "actually" 4GB cards or 3.5GB cards like the 970...
dgrdsv
Member
Sorry for bumping an old-ish thread, but this was the only GTX 960-specific one I could find.
So from checking Newegg & Amazon, I guess the 4GB 960 models are finally starting to appear: EVGA has released a 4GB model at $240/$250:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487128
This comes close to a sweet-spot for me, though I think the price is still a bit much: I only do 1080p gaming, so the 970 seemed like overkill, but I was also concerned with buying a 960 2GB since so many games seem to drive up VRAM usage with ultra and high textures, etc.
So... at this point I guess my options are to get a standard 2GB 960 for $200, a 4GB 960 for around $240, or a 970 for around $330... I'm leaning towards the 4GB 960 if I can maybe get a good rebate or promo with it.
P.S. I guess there's no indication as to whether these are "actually" 4GB cards or 3.5GB cards like the 970...
At 1080p with no MSAA you'd be fine with 2 GBs. And running MSAA on a 960 will probably be too slow in newer titles.
Or you can wait a bit and get 4 GB 960 when the prices will settle a bit.
960 have full 4 GB because there is nothing disabled in them. If there would be that would be visible on 2 GB cards as well.
I also think that NV isn't that stupid to pull the same trick twice in half a year.
Thanks - another consideration I have is that I like that there's a 2GB 960 variant that fits within smaller cases, since later down the line I can pass it down to my secondary or HTPC, whereas with most 960/970 models the length and size usually means it has to be installed in a full-size ATX tower, which I only use for my main PC. So maybe I'll just get the cheaper small 2GB 960 to last me the next two years, and then pass it down when it comes time to upgrade to a more powerful 4GB card, rather than being stuck with a large card I can't use in anything else.
dgrdsv
Member
4 GB 960 card should be using the same amount of memory chips but with higher capacity, there is no reason why it can't be of the same size as the 2 GB variant.
elcuervo75
Banned
I just bought a GTX 960 with money I got selling my XBox 360. Do you guys think this was a mistake?
It compares with a $300+ GTX 770 and I got my 960 for $200.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960-vs-GeForce-GTX-770
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_oc_review,15.html
It compares with a $300+ GTX 770 and I got my 960 for $200.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960-vs-GeForce-GTX-770
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_960_gaming_oc_review,15.html
Dictator93
Member
It depends as always what you are content with. WIth a heav yoverclock the 960 is pretty OK. I just think it lacks in VRAM.
elcuervo75
Banned
I'm happy with 1080p @ 30 fps with high settings. As long as it doesn't dip below 30 fps.
Dictator93
Member
That is quite doable on a 960. Although, some games / future games may require you to turn down texture resolution to do that.