GTX 960 Superclocked 4GB overkill for my purposes?

[iiiankiii]

If you are willing to get closer to $300 for the graphics card, then you better buy a GTX 970. Else, stick with a GTX 960 2GB (not 4GB version) if you want a cheaper card. You can get a GTX 960 2GB under $200 and it runs even with a 430W power supply like Seasonic S12II-430 Bronze.

I disagree. The 290 is a good $70-$80 cheaper than the GTX 970. The GTX 970 still cost $330. An AIB 290 will trade blows with the GTX 970. If you're budget is that high, I would pick a 390 over the GTX 970 if power consumption isn't a concern. The 390 is generally faster, just as quiet and cool, has more than DOUBLE VRAM, and scales very well with Crossfire. Bottom line, you can't bet a 290 in terms of bang for the buck.

 

[Shmee]

Agreed the 290 with a good cooler is excellent bang for buck. The 600W corsair should be fine for a 290.

 

[Seba]

For R9 290 you do not want the cheapest version. You want one with a good cooler. And then the price difference to GTX 970 (in which case you can safely go to the cheapest card) is smaller.

Add to that the fact than you can get a less powerful (and cheaper for the same quality) power supply for GTX 970 (GTX 970 TDP 145 watt vs R9 290 TDP 275 watt). And you also have less heat to dissipate from the case.

And besides, R9 290 does not match GTX 970 in performance.

 

[TemjinGold]

For R9 290 you do not want the cheapest version. You want one with a good cooler. And then the price difference to GTX 970 (in which case you can safely go to the cheapest card) is smaller.

Add to that the fact than you can get a less powerful (and cheaper for the same quality) power supply for GTX 970 (GTX 970 TDP 145 watt vs R9 290 TDP 275 watt). And you also have less heat to dissipate from the case.

And besides, R9 290 does not match GTX 970 in performance.

You may want to check actual reviews before you quote nVidia's marketing that the 970 draws half the power of the 290 because that's not even remotely true.

 

[Seba]

You may want to check actual reviews before you quote nVidia's marketing that the 970 draws half the power of the 290 because that's not even remotely true.

Feel free to post actual consumption figures if you have them. You will see that the gap between R9 290 and GTX 970 is significant.

 

[iiiankiii]

For R9 290 you do not want the cheapest version. You want one with a good cooler. And then the price difference to GTX 970 (in which case you can safely go to the cheapest card) is smaller.

Add to that the fact than you can get a less powerful (and cheaper for the same quality) power supply for GTX 970 (GTX 970 TDP 145 watt vs R9 290 TDP 275 watt). And you also have less heat to dissipate from the case.

And besides, R9 290 does not match GTX 970 in performance.

The version linked a few post above is not cheap. It's one of the better coolers out there. MSI R9 290 Gaming priced at $260. The cheapest GTX 970 is priced at $315. That's a $55 difference.

Feel free to post actual consumption figures if you have them. You will see that the gap between R9 290 and GTX 970 is significant.

here you go:

70-80 watts. It's whatever in the bigger schemes of things.

 

[sm625]

Minecraft shader packs do seem to prefer nvidia cards, but I'm not really sold on what they add to the game anyway.

 

[Seba]

The version linked a few post above is not cheap. It's one of the better coolers out there. MSI R9 290 Gaming priced at $260. The cheapest GTX 970 is priced at $315. That's a $55 difference.

That R9 290 is not a cheap version, but then the price difference is not $80 either, isn't it?

And you also must account for the performance difference: GTX 970 is better than R9 290.

70-80 watts. It's whatever in the bigger schemes of things.

More or less you can step down one power level (from a certain power supply series) when choosing the power supply. Something like instead of the 600watt model, you can choose the 500watt model.

 

[tential]

That R9 290 is not a cheap version, but then the price difference is not $80 either, isn't it?

And you also must account for the performance difference: GTX 970 is better than R9 290.


More or less you can step down one power level (from a certain power supply series) when choosing the power supply. Something like instead of the 600watt model, you can choose the 500watt model.

Lol all the same price here for those psus. Sales on Newegg you're bound get a good psu cheap.

For the performance difference.... If 5% on average is worth $80 then lol......

 

[Seba]

The price difference is less than $80. More like $55. Compared with the price of that entire PC and taking into account that this build would probably get 3+ years of use, not very much.

And you get a card that has the better performance and produces considerably less heat. You want to avoid heat with any electronic component, so this is not an insignificant aspect.

Also, it is not usual that the power supply with the higher wattage is at the same price as the one with the lower wattage (in the same series, obviously, "LOL").

 

[Headfoot]

For R9 290 you do not want the cheapest version. You want one with a good cooler. And then the price difference to GTX 970 (in which case you can safely go to the cheapest card) is smaller.

Nope. The Tri-X 290 is the cheapest one now.

 

[Headfoot]

Dude, the Tri-X 290 @ $250 is a better buy than any GTX 970 @ $320 AR, full stop.

 

[Seba]

Nope. The Tri-X 290 is the cheapest one now.

Dude, the Tri-X 290 @ $250 is a better buy than any GTX 970 @ $320 AR, full stop.

The card from your link is $280 (260$ after rebate). Too close to GTX 970 price to be a better buy. I forgot to add that it is also huge (12"/305mm long).

 

[Headfoot]

The card from your link is $280 (260$ after rebate). Too close to GTX 970 price to be a better buy. I forgot to add that it is also huge (12"/305mm long).

$40 cheaper is a half dozen games on steam for giving up next to no performance (~5%) and you gain .5 more GB of usable RAM. 290 is the better buy.

 

[Seba]

Then imagine how many games he could buy if he went for GTX 960 2GB.

 

[Headfoot]

Because saving $40 and losing 40-50% performance and 2GB of RAM is the same as saving $40 and losing ~5% of performance and gaining .5GB of RAM

 

[iiiankiii]

Then imagine how many games he cold buy if he went for GTX 960 2GB.

Bro.. The GTX 960 2GB is a HORRIBLE card. There's a huge difference between spending another $50 for another 40-50% in performance AND an extra 2GB than $50 for roughly the same performance and LESS traditonal VRAM (you're welcome GTX 970 memory structure 3.5GB); sans the power consumption. Like I said, unless you HIGHLY value power consumption, the 290 is a better buy than the 970.

edit: cheapest 290 is the Gigabyte Windforce @ $250 after rebate.

Cheapest GTX 970 is $315 after rebate

That's $65 more for less power consumption, less VRAM (3.5 vs 4), and roughly the same performance +/-5% for the GTX 970

 

[Seba]

For Minecraft even a GTX 960 is more than enough.

For Metal Gear Solid 5, according to the benchmark posted by shady28 in the second post, the R9 290 drops to 46 fps, while GTX 970 maintains a steady 60 fps (probably that game is limited at 60fps). This is huge.

I do not know about DayZ, it is not usually used in benchmarks.

 

[Headfoot]

So now you're talking about 970 instead of 960? Keep in mind non-throttling Tri-X 290 performs about around a stock uber mode 290x. Comparing to stock models on the 290 is pretty irrelevant since you cant buy them new any more.

But hey, if that's all you've got then sure. Let's make sure the OP doesn't get a stock 290.

 

[Seba]

From my first post in this thread I talked about both:

If you are willing to get closer to $300 for the graphics card, then you better buy a GTX 970. Else, stick with a GTX 960 2GB (not 4GB version) if you want a cheaper card. You can get a GTX 960 2GB under $200 and it runs even with a 430W power supply like Seasonic S12II-430 Bronze.

And by the way: GTX 960 2GB is far from "a horrible card". It is better than GTX 760 2GB, which not long ago was the most recommended medium range card for 1920x1080 gaming.

 

[TemjinGold]

If you are seriously recommending that the OP save $50 to get the 2gb 960 over an aftermarket 290, there's really not much more I can say. I'm just going to stand here with my mouth wide open and gape.

 

[iiiankiii]

From my first post in this thread I talked about both:



And by the way: GTX 960 2GB is far from "a horrible card". It is better than GTX 760 2GB, which not long ago was the most recommended medium range card for 1920x1080 gaming.

Oh, if you look at the power consumption chart I posted. The power consumption of the ENTIRE system with the 290 is 293 watts vs 243 watts for the 970. That means you can run it on a quality 430 watt power supply. When you look at the ENTIRE system power draw, it's not that big of a difference.

The GTX 960 2GB is a horrible card RIGHT NOW. We're not talking about the past. Heck, 5 years ago, the GTX 960 2GB would have been the holy grail of all cards. Too bad we're stuck in the present. RIGHT NOW, the GTX 960 2gb is not a good value. The 290 is a much better value. In fact, the 290 is the best value you can get from a card, RIGHT NOW.

 

[Seba]

If you are seriously recommending that the OP save $50 to get the 2gb 960 over an aftermarket 290, there's really not much more I can say. I'm just going to stand here with my mouth wide open and gape.

Let me reiterate: I recommend GTX 970 if he is looking in the $300 price zone.

GTX 960 is a viable option if he wants to keep a restricted budget and still get a usable gaming PC.

The reasons were already stated, I will not repeat them.

 

[Seba]

The GTX 960 2GB is a horrible card RIGHT NOW.

Care to explain why GTX 960 is a horrible card? Then how is a card like R9 270?

If you look in the same Metal Gear Solid 5 benchmark from post # 2, you will see that GTX 760 2GB almost matches the R9 290 4GB performance. And GTX 960 2GB is better than GTX 760 2GB (GTX 960 is not present in that bemchmark).

That means you can run it on a quality 430 watt power supply.

I would not even try to put a R9 290 in a PC with a 430 watt power supply. Even a 80+ Gold rated one.

 

[iiiankiii]

Care to explain why GTX 960 is a horrible card? Then how is a card like R9 270?

If you look in the same Metal Gear Solid 5 benchmark from post # 2, you will see that GTX 760 2GB almost matches the R9 290 4GB performance. And GTX 960 2GB is better than GTX 760 2GB (GTX 960 is not present in that bemchmark).


I would not even try to put a R9 290 in a PC with a 430 watt power supply. Even a gold rated one.

Oh, that sucks, too.

Oh, I ran a 290 with a corsair 430watt for nearly a year. The power draw was under 350 watts AT THE WALL; that's with an overclocked 3770k @4.5ghz. At 85% efficiency, that's about 300 watts of total system power draw.

So I guess, for you, if something pulls 300 watts, you need atleast a 500 watt power supply to be safe? Even though the power supply is rated at a continuous 430watts? Again, I said quality power supply. Not some generic no name. But, people always over estimate their wattage needs. You'll be surprise how little your system draws if you measure it with a kill-a-watt.