GTX 960 Superclocked 4GB overkill for my purposes?

[TeknoBug]

Everything has to be in context, and from what I can tell TeknoBug 'upgraded' from a 760 to a 960. And yeah, that would be a bad / useless move given that a box that powers a 760 can power a 280x or 380.

I didn't upgrade from a 760, the 960 was for a new i3 build. I had a 760, 770, 970, R9 280X and R9 290. I don't regret the 960 but it doesn't have enough value for the cost- the 750Ti is an example of value for cost and I still use that card.

 

[Seba]

290 = $260 and it's 50% faster than a 960 4GB for $230. It's 50% more performance for $30.

You should not compare with GTX 960 4GB, but with 2GB version, which can be found under $200. 2GB is enough on a GTX 960 level card (in most games there is no meaningful performance increase with 4GB versions so there is no point in paying extra for the 4GB version).

 

[TeknoBug]

You should not compare with GTX 960 4GB, but with 2GB version, which can be found under $200. 2GB is enough on a GTX 960 level card (in most games there is no meaningful performance increase with 4GB versions so there is no point in paying extra for the 4GB version).

Unless you want to up the texture setting in some games which can't be done on 2GB.

 

[PG]

Unless you want to up the texture setting in some games which can't be done on 2GB.

Exactly. In the video settings for Arkham Knight it says that low textures requires a 2GB card. Medium requires 3GB. 2GB cards are not enough for the latest games if you want them to look good.

 

[Seba]

Did you get significantly better frame rates in Batman Arkham Knight on GTX 960 4GB vs. GTX 960 2GB?

Those significantly better frame rates must also be playable frame rates, because for instance 15 fps is significantly better than 10 fps - 50% more - but it does not matter, because the game is unplayable with those settings.

 

[shady28]

Funny people would use Arkham Knight as an argument against the 960.

The 2gb 960 pretty much destroys the 280X, 280, 7970, and 380 in this particular game at 1080p, and at 1440p its basically a tie on avg fps with the 960 getting 20% higher min FPS (less stutter), so another win for 960.

Generally speaking the 380 is ~10% faster than a 960, but the 960 is about 10% less expensive. ie, I can get a 2GB 960 for $179 right now and a 4GB for $219. And that's without mail in rebates.

Then you've got the OC levels of the 960 pretty easily hitting 30% by the user, with many having a 15% OC out of the box. Compare that to max 10% on the AMD cards.

As far as the 290 comparison, that's asinine. The 290 requires much higher power PSUs which aren't common even in iBuyPower or CyberPowerPC type chassis, much less most OEMs like HP, Dell, Asus etc. So for 95%+ of systems it's entirely inappropriate \ unusable without a PSU upgrade, even if you are ok with the extra heat and noise.

 

[PG]

I'm not sure I trust Techspot's numbers. Gamegpu got much different results.
Techspot: GTX 960 beats 7970 and GTX 770
Gamegpu: GTX 770 and 7970 beat GTX 960

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/batman-arkham-knight-test-gpu.html


This is the type of thing I was talking about. It's not Arkham Knight, but it gets the point across:

"Assassin's Creed Unity is the poster-child of memory capacity advantages. The game regularly capped-out our available memory on the 4GB card and fully saturated the 2GB card. This saturation results in memory swapping between system RAM and the GPU's memory, causing the massive spikes reflected by the 1% low and 0.1% low numbers.

In this scenario, Assassin's Creed Unity has a massive performance differential between the 4GB and 2GB options, to the point that 4GB of VRAM will actually see full utilization and benefit to the user's gameplay. Despite similar average FPS numbers, ACU exhibited jarring, sudden framerate drops with the 2GB card as memory cycled, effectively making the game unplayable on ultra settings at 1080p. The 4GB card had an effective minimum of 30FPS and an average of 39FPS, making for a generally playable experience. Settings could be moderately tweaked for greater performance.

A 4GB card has direct, noticeable impact on the gaming experience with ACU."

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2

 

[iiiankiii]

As far as the 290 comparison, that's asinine. The 290 requires much higher power PSUs which aren't common even in iBuyPower or CyberPowerPC type chassis, much less most OEMs like HP, Dell, Asus etc. So for 95%+ of systems it's entirely inappropriate \ unusable without a PSU upgrade, even if you are ok with the extra heat and noise.

Totally agree there. The majority of those type of gamers are not the targeted audience for the R9 290. The 290 is recommended if you have a decent +450 watt psu. If you do have a decent +450 watt psu, the 290 is a great choice. If you're being gimped by a janky PSU, the GTX 960 might not even run on it.

It really is a crab shoot with those OEM PSU. You never really know what you're getting yourself into with those PSU. Even a PSU rated at "500 watts" is untrustworthy from those OEMs. I've had systems do a hard shut downs from those "500 watt" PSU under load. Replaced the "500 watt" PSU with a decent 430 watt PSU and the system ran without a problem.

I wouldn't be surprise if adding ANY GPU might pop the system. I wouldn't trust OEM PSU to power upgraded GPUs. I've seen many oem PC without pcie connectors!! Yeah, it's that bad. But, you're right. The R9 290 is out of the question with those suspicious oem PSU.

P.S. let's leave Arkham Knight out of the equation for now. That game was pulled from steam for being the most hideously unoptimized game in recent memories. The game is a slideshow from a regular HDD. I've never seen a game being unplayable from an HDD, ever.

 

[Seba]

This is the type of thing I was talking about. It's not Arkham Knight, but it gets the point across:



"Assassin's Creed Unity is the poster-child of memory capacity advantages. The game regularly capped-out our available memory on the 4GB card and fully saturated the 2GB card. This saturation results in memory swapping between system RAM and the GPU's memory, causing the massive spikes reflected by the 1% low and 0.1% low numbers.

Yes, Assasin's Creed Unity is the only game I saw where GTX 960 4GB version justifies it's price premium over the 2GB version (and even here you can lower the setings from "Ultra" and get playable framerates with GTX 960 2GB at 1920x1080). But you will not see this kind of performance difference (between 2GB and 4GB versions) in most games, like I said (for example just look at all the rest of the games benchmarks at 1920x1080 from your link).

 

[iiiankiii]

Yes, Assasin's Creed Unity is the only game I saw where GTX 960 4GB version justifies it's price premium over the 2GB version. But you will not see this kind of performance difference in most games, like I said (for example just look at all the rest of the games benchmarks at 1920x1080 from your link).

Here's another example of 2GB vs 4GB

 

[Seba]

Here's another example of 2GB vs 4GB

In the post that you quoted I was talking about GTX 960 2GB vs. GTX 960 4GB. In your benchmarks the GTX 960 4GB is missing. Or maybe you belive that GTX 970 4GB or R9 290 4GB are better than GTX 960 2GB mostly because they have 4GB instead of 2GB, in which case you are very mistaken.

 

[iiiankiii]

In the post that you quoted I was talking about GTX 960 2GB vs. GTX 960 4GB. In your benchmarks the GTX 960 4GB is missing. Or maybe you belive that GTX 970 4GB or R9 290 4GB are better than GTX 960 2GB mostly because they have 4GB instead of 2GB, in which case you are very mistaken.

Sorry. It was meant to show the advantage of 2gb vs 4gb. Considering the gtx 960 is roughly equal to a r9 280/285 when not limited by VRAM restriction. You can see the r9 280 being a lot faster than the GTX 960. The 2gb vs 3gb is the reason.

The gtx 770 is also faster than the GTX 960 2gb. In this case, they're similar because of the 2GB limitation.

 

[shady28]

You can find a fair number of reviews showing 4GB vs 2GB on 960 and 380, probably on the 370 as well.

Sometimes the difference is dramatic.

Main reason I look at the 4 cards mentioned (4GB 960 / 380 and 970 / Nano) is that they all fit within a certain power envelope and price spectrum. It's a spectrum that cards like the 290 / 390 / 980 don't generally fit in. Nano may be an interesting option if it comes in at <=175W and lands solidly between 970 and 980 in performance, provided it has a middling price point to match (~$450). From what I understand, it may be possible for an 800 Mhz Fiji to do that. I guess we will see.

 

[mohit9206]

It makes most sense to spend a little extra and get 4gb 960 rather than deliberately gimp yourself by getting 2gb just to save a few bucks. An average gamer who is looking to buy a $200 card will probably keep it for 3-4 years and within that time, many games will come out that will give less than playable performance on 2gb while running smoothly on 4gb. Its the same situation as 460 768mb vs 1gb,6950 1gb vs 2gb,7850 1gb vs 2gb,etc. Always makes sense to buy higher memory card that we know has the gpu power required to utilize more than 2gb and 960 can certainly utilize more than 2gb as has been already proved by various benchmarks. Whether those select few games are poorly optimized or performance hogs is irrelevant as PC games will continue to utilize more and more memory.

 

[Seba]

If you are going to spend extra for more than 2GB (on a GTX 960 level card), then you are better off spending extra for a more powerful GPU.

 

[TeknoBug]

If you are going to spend extra for more than 2GB (on a GTX 960 level card), then you are better off spending extra for a more powerful GPU.

And what other 3-4GB cards are in the same price range though? (excluding R9 290).

 

[poofyhairguy]

And what other 3-4GB cards are in the same price range though? (excluding R9 290).

The 4GB R9 380. A 3GB R9 280 or 280X.

 

[mohit9206]

If you are going to spend extra for more than 2GB (on a GTX 960 level card), then you are better off spending extra for a more powerful GPU.

No that doesn't make sense. 4gb 960 is much cheaper than 3.5gb 970 by about $100.So by that logic instead of 3.5gb 970 why not go for 4gb 980? Or instead of 4gb 980 why not go for 6gb 980ti? This way we go from 960 to 980ti which doesn't make sense.
All I'm saying is 4gb 960 is better than 2gb 960 in terms of value for money as well as longevity. Every year Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty and Battlefield games will come out and they all WILL run better on 4gb than 2gb. So unless you won't be playing any AAA games, 4gb is the minimum in a $200-250 card.

 

[Seba]

So by that logic instead of 3.5gb 970 why not go for 4gb 980?

Because the performance jump is not that great and GTX 970 is capable enough for most games from today and from the near future at 1920x1080.

In GTX 960 2GB case for some games you will have to use lower settings, but this is offset by the somewhat affordable card price. If you go beyond $200, then you may as well gain a clear performance advantage with a GTX 970 card class over the GTX 960 card class.