[Computerbase] GTX960 & R9 380: 2GB vs. 4GB -- Conclusion: Get a 4GB card

[RussianSensation]

This is a great analysis by Computerbase that just adds to the pile of benchmarks many of us linked over 2015 to warn upgraders from not buying 2GB cards because they would be obsolete very soon. Furthermore, Computerbase notes that comparative FPS graphs of 2GB vs. 4GB cards often do not accurately reflect the massive real world stutters experienced in the actual game.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-12/...on-r9-380-fps-assassins-creed-unity-1920-1080

Pretty much unless you are absolutely budget constrained, under no circumstances should you buy a 2GB card anymore if the 4GB option is just 20-30 Euro (USD) more expensive.

This is not surprising to me of course and I'll just repeat it one more time: All those sites which recommended GTX960 2GB and gave it Gold and Silver awards throughout 2015 while completely ignoring 2GB VRAM limitations of newer games should be ashamed of the advice they gave in 2015. :thumbsdown:

Once again, we have to rely on a European review site to get objective advice and data. Thankfully, they still deliver!


---

With current prices, skip 2GB cards

960 2GB = $175
960 4GB = $190

R9 380 2GB = $153
R9 380 4GB = $180

 

[Techhog]

Brace yourselves, excuses are coming.

The people who deny this are not going to be convinced by anything at this point, really. They'll continue to happily deny the obvious truth.

 

[LTC8K6]

When were the 4gb 960 cards released?

Or maybe I should ask what the price difference was at release?

 

[Seba]

[Computerbase] GTX960 & R9 380: 2GB vs. 4GB -- Conclusion: Get a 4GB card if you play Shadow of Mordor.

 

[Mercennarius]

Not surprising. 4GB+ of VRAM is already being utilized in many new games (Ark Survival, Ashes of Singularity, etc.).

 

[frozentundra123456]

Seems like the 960 handles 2gb better than the 380. These are five of the most demanding games, and even then with the 960 the lines are pretty much superimposed on top of each other except in Mordor, and to a lesser extent in Unity. So is 4 gb better, undoubtedly in a few games, but I still dont think a 2gb card is a disaster like the OP claims. TBH, one could almost as easily use this data to argue that at least for the 960, 2gb is enough except for vram hogs like Mordor. (Edit: pretty much what Seba said.)

 

[SPBHM]

yes the 960 2GB has a lot less frame times problems than the 285/380 2GB, it's pretty impressive

 

[RussianSensation]

When were the 4gb 960 cards released?

Or maybe I should ask what the price difference was at release?

More excuses? Predictable.

- Professional reviewers should take into account that most PC gamers on a budget do not swap out cards every 9 months. Therefore, looking at historical track record of 8800GT 256MB vs. 512MB, 4870 512MB vs. 1GB, 8800GTS 320MB vs. 640MB, HD6950 1GB vs. 2GB, etc. they should have known better. Considering people on forums called it as early as when R9 285 2GB launched, this is inexcusable. For your information, AnandTech never recommended 960 2GB and in all recent reviews they highlighted in text how 2GB cards are a dangerous buy.

- It makes no difference if 960 4GB was released later or not because we had R9 280 3GB, R9 280X 3GB and R9 290 4GB. Every single one of those cards offered superior price/performance and more VRAM and yet some reviewers ignored them for the entire year. No excuses. Professionals who are knowledgeable+objective about PC tech would have never ignored this point.

-Even today, with almost a year worth of data showing how 2GB cards are DOA, people still ignore this point. This very thread is proof of it. Despite countless reviews and data, to this day people are just denying pure facts.

[Computerbase] GTX960 & R9 380: 2GB vs. 4GB -- Conclusion: Get a 4GB card if you play Shadow of Mordor.

I don't even know what to say. I'll start with the following:

1) Learn how to read frame time charts
2) Learn how to read the entire review

Your entire a weak attempt to undermine the actual data because the review completely contradicts your post.

These are five of the most demanding games, and even then with the 960 the lines are pretty much superimposed on top of each other except in Mordor, and to a lesser extent in Unity. So is 4 gb better, undoubtedly in a few games, but I still dont think a 2gb card is a disaster like the OP claims.

It's not just me, but professional reviewers. Do not try to paint it as me claiming 2GB cards are obsolete when it's the exact thing the professionals are showing with hard data proving it. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

TBH, one could almost as easily use this data to argue that at least for the 960, 2gb is enough except for vram hogs like Mordor. (Edit: pretty much what Seba said.)

WOW, did you people bother reading the review and checking graphs?

Do you know the review has frame times graphs for each game?

Go back to the review in Computerbase and tell us again with a straight face that the only 2 games that show frame times issues on a 960 2GB are Unity and Shadow of Mordor?

Do you know they are measuring frame times? Look at the GTA V, Unity and Dragon Age Inquisition graphs again now compare the spikes between the blue and green line frame times.

BTW, that review did not even include some other VRAM heavy titles such as Black Ops 3, Batman AK, AC Syndicate, Dead Rising 3, F1 2015, Watch Dogs, etc. In all of those titles too, 2GB cards would get owned hard. Not to mention in games like Titanfall and Wolfenstein NWO you cannot even turn on the highest texture settings.

 

[xorbe]

Did they use max ultra settings on everything?

 

[Zodiark1593]

Seems like the 960 handles 2gb better than the 380. These are five of the most demanding games, and even then with the 960 the lines are pretty much superimposed on top of each other except in Mordor, and to a lesser extent in Unity. So is 4 gb better, undoubtedly in a few games, but I still dont think a 2gb card is a disaster like the OP claims. TBH, one could almost as easily use this data to argue that at least for the 960, 2gb is enough except for vram hogs like Mordor. (Edit: pretty much what Seba said.)

Quite frankly, if one were to stretch the budget enough for a 4 GB card, the GTX 960 isn't really worth considering anyhow unless you score on a sale.

Before the price drops the 4 GB premium was borderline robbery. I snagged a 2 GB GTX 960 on sale for $165 back in August. This compared to $225 that the 4 GB variants were going for. No doubt, I'd have loved more vram, and I needed CUDA support, but the price difference for no compute increase was outrageous.

 

[RussianSensation]

Did they use max ultra settings on everything?

4GB cards run the same games smoother at the same level of quality. If we are going to use the argument that well I can just turn off 1-2 settings on 2GB card and I am good to go, then I can buy a $90 R9 270 and turn 1-2 settings too and be good to go.

Looking at the prices of 2GB vs. 4GB cards, it makes no sense to buy a 2GB 960/380 in the US. What about 2016 games?

Doom, Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Wildlands, The Division, Dishonored 2, Homefront: The Revolution, Mass Effect: Andromeda, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Hitman, etc. Every single one of these titles, esp. the open world Ubisoft games, have the potential to cripple 2GB cards.

Quite frankly, if one were to stretch the budget enough for a 4 GB card, the GTX 960 isn't really worth considering anyhow unless you score on a sale.

With today's prices, the move to 970/390 is another $100 up. While I would recommend anyone to skip the entire sub-970/390/290 segment if they can afford it, some gamers cannot afford a $280-300 card but someone who is spending $150-170 on a card should be well aware of what they are getting by saving $20-30 today by foregoing the 4GB variant.

Before the price drops the 4 GB premium was borderline robbery. I snagged a 2 GB GTX 960 on sale for $165 back in August. This compared to $225 that the 4 GB variants were going for. No doubt, I'd have loved more vram, and I needed CUDA support, but the price difference for no compute increase was outrageous.

Ya, at $225 960 4GB made no sense against $180 280X or $250 290 but that's just another point -- almost the entire professional community never pointed this out. Instead, they chose people to just buy a 960 2GB card as if it's fine and dandy and now with solid data we can see how 960 2GB **** itself in modern titles. The recommendation was very simple back then: go 280X or save extra for a 290 or if you must have NV, save for a 970. It's perfectly fine to not recommend buying a bad product. But I guess when their ad revenue and review samples depend on making BUY recommendations, it's hard to expect objective, unbiased recommendations.

 

[sandorski]

Just upgraded from a 1gb 5870 to 4gb 380. The main reason, besides extreme age, was that GTA V was only playable at 720p on the 5870. So I fired up GTA V with the new card, using game chosen settings at 1080p it uses just over 2gb(2.1xx iirc). Game runs great, looks tons better, certainly glad I didn't settle for 2gb.

 

[Denithor]

So, I guess we don't have a distinction between 3/3.5/4GB cards? Because in most benchmarks I've seen the 7970 3GB still holds up very well against the R9 4GB cards. And then we have the whole 970 3.5/4GB issue...

 

[RussianSensation]

Game runs great, looks tons better, certainly glad I didn't settle for 2gb.

:thumbsup:

Batman AK is completely broken on 2GB cards. You need 3GB+ to run at high settings @ 1080P.

GTX760 2GB with i5 @ 3.7Ghz and 16GB of RAM barely manages 30 fps @ 1080P on Low/Medium.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUf8a0Rh3sI

Unless it's fixed, F1 2015 doesn't work with 2GB cards on highest quality @ 1080P. Minimum required for no-stuttering is 3GB card.

Black Ops 3's real world performance is much worse on 2GB vs. 3-4GB cards as well.

 

[Mercennarius]

So, I guess we don't have a distinction between 3/3.5/4GB cards? Because in most benchmarks I've seen the 7970 3GB still holds up very well against the R9 4GB cards. And then we have the whole 970 3.5/4GB issue...

The way I see it today is this:

2GB is simply not enough for modern graphically intensive games today.
3GB will get you by but not for much longer.
4GB is good for 2015/2016.
6GB+ is good, currently really shines at 4K and texture heavy gaming, and will become the standard for new games within a year.

New games coming soon like ARK Survival and Ashes of the Singularity are already using more than 4GB of VRAM at higher graphic settings.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you are going for high end gaming, aren't you going for more card than a 960 or 380?

 

[Mercennarius]

If you are going for high end gaming, aren't you going for more card than a 960 or 380?

I'll edit...modern gaming(graphically intensive) is a better way of phrasing it.

 

[LTC8K6]

For your information, AnandTech never recommended 960 2GB and in all recent reviews they highlighted in text how 2GB cards are a dangerous buy.

I don't even remember Anandtech reviewing the 960...

 

[Denithor]

I don't even remember Anandtech reviewing the 960...

They didn't. They presented a summary of basic details at launch, promising a full review "early next week" that still hasn't materialized 3 months later.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8923/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-960

Funny how they will review the high dollar cards that 1% of gamers can afford while the cards for the masses go largely ignored.

 

[frowertr]

Bummer. Just bought and installed an Asus GTX 960 2GB for my new Skylake living room gaming PC. Since I am still on a 1080p TV I, I was under the impression that 2GB was enough at this resolution.

Oh well. I will probably move to Pascal when it comes out and also upgrade the TV to 4K at the same time. I'll make sure to get a 4GB card at that time.

 

[Leadbox]

I don't even remember Anandtech reviewing the 960...

I think they lumped it in with the 380X review. The architecture(Maxwell) was already covered in the 980/980ti reviews, so not much else to be said about that.

 

[boozzer]

They didn't. They presented a summary of basic details at launch, promising a full review "early next week" that still hasn't materialized 3 months later.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8923/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-960

Funny how they will review the high dollar cards that 1% of gamers can afford while the cards for the masses go largely ignored.

don't be so hard on the reviewers. they either have to write that it is trash and risk loosing ad dollars or eat their own integrity and praise the card.

hard choices, so I can understand why some reviewers chose no review.

But we as gamers got no such constrains, I have been calling it trash since even before it came out.

 

[SirPauly]

Edit

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well, anybody with one on those awful 2gb 960s can send it to me. I will gladly take it off their hands.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well, anybody with one on those awful 2gb 960s can send it to me. I will gladly take it off their hands.

Nobody is suggesting not getting one for free. It's buying it that's dumb.