• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Could asus strix gtx 960 last 5 years?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
master_shake_ said:
i totally agree, with the games that are put outnow and the inflated vram requirements the 960 and anything else with 2gbs is going to get worse.

5 years? more like 5 months at this rate.
Click to expand...

The 285 has the same issue, even though it seems less affected in that benchmark by a VRAM wall.
 
aaksheytalwar said:
2 yrs if you're really lucky with a 4gb model and fast cpu. Even a Titan x won't be good 5 yrs from now.
Click to expand...

A GTX 480 is still capable of playing games 1080p high acceptably 5 years later. But a 60 model, especially a weak 60 model like the 960? That thing will be trash in 5 years.
 
Last 5 years without failure, possibly. Be useful in 5 years? Probably not so much for gaming.

SteveGrabowski said:
A GTX 480 is still capable of playing games 1080p high acceptably 5 years later. But a 60 model, especially a weak 60 model like the 960? That thing will be trash in 5 years.
Click to expand...

And the 960 is more like a "950" this time around. It has really weak hardware specs.
 
poofyhairguy said:
Shadow of Mordor is the GTX 960 killer. If more next-gen console ports are like that (now that last gen is being dumped as a baseline) the GTX 960 (and the R9 285) will go down as some of the worst value cards of all time.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of games that smash 960 but certain members on this forum purposely try to not talk about them to hide the 2GB VRAM bottleneck.

acu_1920_1080.gif


For the OP, depends on the settings and games you want to play. If you wanted a future-proof card for 5 years, should have spent $50 extra for the R9 290 4GB - would have gotten double the VRAM and 50-60% more GPU power. I doubt anyone on this forum would have recommended you to buy a GTX960 over the slightly more expensive R9 290 if the discussion was to keep it for 5 years.

SteveGrabowski said:
A GTX 480 is still capable of playing games 1080p high acceptably 5 years later. But a 60 model, especially a weak 60 model like the 960? That thing will be trash in 5 years.
Click to expand...

960 is only as fast as the original 925mhz 7970. In 5 years from now, that level of performance will be 8.5 years old! I personally think 960 will be too slow even in 2.5 years. But if he plays games like SC2, LoL, WoW, CS, DOTA, etc. at low-mediums settings, it could last 5+.
 
Last edited:
Eh. let's be kind 🙂

The 960 is a genuinely good entry level card, which - through no particular fault of its own - has ended up at a somewhat eccentric price/market position.

The 285 is a bit harder to be positive about, but the stuff behind it got them that retina iMac contract so far from a total fail.
 
No, a 960 will not last 5 years, not even close. For ~$60 more an R9 290 will last a lot longer, probably not 5 years if you want to keep settings up, but it would last 5 years if you're okay turning down settings as the years pass and you stay at 1080p.
 
The 960 would be a good entry level card had the 290/970 been 400-450+. Then a $180 price would have been justified for a 960. Not now.
 
Qwertilot said:
Eh. let's be kind 🙂

The 960 is a genuinely good entry level card, which - through no particular fault of its own - has ended up at a somewhat eccentric price/market position.
Click to expand...

NV should have released a $249 960Ti with 1280 shaders, 192-bit bus and 3GB of VRAM. The issue with the 960 isn't just about its relative price/performance standing to AMD. Irrespective of what AMD even offers, 960 for $200 should have never had just 2GB of VRAM. Also, as far as the GPU performance goes, NV has never delivered a next gen mid-range x60 card on a new architecture with so little increase in performance. Even during the same Fermi generation, the move from the 460 to the 560 netted a greater increase than the move from Kepler 760 to Maxwell 960. That's shockingly bad. GTX960 is only 13-14% faster than the 760 but the 760 came out June 25, 2013, nearly 2 years ago. 960 should have really been called a 940 or a 950. It doesn't deserve the X60 designation and unfortunately there will be a lot of gamers who think 960 is an upgrade from a 760 or even 670/680/770 cards, but it isn't. I feel like the 960 marketing name in this case is actually deceiving on purpose to get less knowledgeable gamers to upgrade. 960 sounds very close to a 970 and yet the latter is 60% faster in GPU limited scenarios. To a less tech savvy gamer who heard how great Maxwell is and how fast GTX970/980/Titan are, he/she might think that 960 is also the best card in its class. The other part is that 960 feels like NV purposely held back the 960Ti version to milk the 960 and then release the 960Ti in the 2nd half of a generation. The end result is between the power efficient 750Ti and the 970, NV has drawn a total blank in the $150-300 space. 960 doesn't meet any of the criteria that made the highly respected mid-range cards like the 6600GT or GTX460 great. The non-tech savvy gamer won't know this though and end up buying a $200 960 and yet again a $200 Pascal to just end up with $300 GTX970 level of performance in 2 years from now. That feels unfortunate and marketing and the 960 name are to blame imo.
 
Last edited:
No GPU lasts 5yrs. You'd be lucky to get a year at best before settings need to be turned down, then next year they need to be further gutted. Look at the OG Titan then and now. Look at higher end Kepler then and now. A 960 now would be lucky to last 5 weeks. The Witcher III will murder it. The same thing will happen to the 980 and Titan BG.
 
Even the Titan X will be irrelevant in a few years with several generations of HBM plus die shrinks later. 28nm is on its last hurrah.
 
Astrallite said:
Even the Titan X will be irrelevant in a few years with several generations of HBM plus die shrinks later. 28nm is on its last hurrah.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends if you need 60 fps avg in all games maxed out with 4xMSAA. For 1080P or even 1440P, the Titan X should be relevant for at least 3 years imo. For example, HD7970Ghz and 680 4GB can easily play most games at 1080P with High settings. Since the Titan X is about 2.5X faster than a 960 (or even higher at 4K), it'll take about 2 generations before a $200 x60 card beats it in performance. That means it might take NV 4 years from now before we see a mainstream $200 beat the Titan X. Most gamers tend to buy cards in that $100-300 range which means Titan X OC level of performance will still be very much relevant in 3 years from now imo.
 
Any decent to good gpu could last 5 years,its just a matter of you adjusting settings.Some games may be a miss and others may be alright.

Had a 9800gtx 512mb running BF3 beta at low 1440x900,if it had been a 1gb well i could have pushed medium but a card based around late 2006 tech pushing a late 2011 game i thought was just awesome.
 
You will be able to play games 5 years from now, just as GTX460/HD5850 can play games today. You will just have to lower image quality settings and perhaps even the resolution in the more demanding games.
But really, it would be better to replace it after 2-3 years.
 
No, definitely not.

I bought 2 EVGA GTX 680 SC+ on release day of 4/3/2012.

I just got rid of them couple weeks ago and I just bought me self a new Asus GTX 980 Matrix.

Not to mention the upcoming new games like Witcher 3 Wild HUNT and games recently out like the GTA 5.

Gona go broke!!! This is a bad hobby to have. 😛
 
AtenRa said:
You will be able to play games 5 years from now, just as GTX460/HD5850 can play games today. You will just have to lower image quality settings and perhaps even the resolution in the more demanding games.
But really, it would be better to replace it after 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

One of our machines has a GTX 470 1.25GB and another has an HD6870 1GB (both now relegated to HTPC duties). They are both five years old and we still use them for gaming. Games like Borderlands 2 can be played on the highest settings at 1080p and typically run well above 60fps. Games like Bioshock Infinite and Crysis usually run OK at medium-high at 1080p (dipping to 40fps). All MOBAs run perfect, all indie games and emulators run perfect, Street Fighter IV Ultra, the previous MK are all buttery smooth with all settings max. I needed to dial back some settings for Injustice, but still vastly superior to consoles. RTS games run pretty well, but those will hammer any GPU (CPU, usually). It's almost comical how much more powerful these 290s are. 😀

All that said - I would be wary of buying any GPU with less than 4GB RAM today if you expect it to be valuable in 5 years - even if you expect to stay at 1080p or 1440p. If you like to use high-res texture packs or if you ever plan on getting a second card for SLI/CF, then you'll want that extra VRAM. You can get the 4GB 960 10% off on Newegg right now, making it the same price as the 2GB model, FYI... but you're better off getting a 290 for $220-250.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top