The 960 is a very good HTPC card - low power consumption, full hardware HEVC decoding (the only card which currently offers this), HDMI 2.0 support, enough shader power to use MadVR at reasonable settings.
People with HDMI 2.0 TVs should be able to afford a GTX970. A modern TV that supports HDMI 2.0 is not exactly cheap. As far as VR goes, same point. Since the OP is likely talking about a gaming upgrade, we have to stick to the topic. If he had a 4K monitor or was interested in VR, then I am sure he would have mentioned it in the OP.
It's also a good card if you want to be able to run three 4K monitors. Most other cards with three or more DP 1.2 outputs are considerably more expensive, and those which aren't are ultra-low-end FirePro or Quadro cards based on obsolete GPUs.
Now you are just killing it. 3x 4K monitors on a $200 card? Come on. Did you think before you posted this?
But if you're primarily into AAA gaming and don't care about the maximum perf/watt, then yes, the R9 280X is going to be a better deal.
2
80X was not once mentioned in the recommendations in this thread. I think you need to be more careful when you read the thread, the posts and then when you respond. The OP is clearly asking what's a good upgrade from his GTX760 and that no AMD cards should be recommended. The advice is clear - GTX970 or something else (used 780Ti), skip 960 at all costs.
I agree. the tech press is more looking like paid pumpers. take for instance hardocp's reviews of GTX 960.
With Maxwell generation, whatever credibility and reputation [H] has built up over the decade, has been all but wiped it. Any review site that recommends a $200 960 2GB while ignoring existing games that need 3GB (AC Unity/Shadow of Mordor/Wolfenstein NWO/Dead Rising 3/Skyrim MODs) and ignores that games aren't just standing still and will use more VRAM in the next 1-2 years (GTA V/mods/etc.), while also ignoring after-market R9 290 for $240 that brings at least 50% more performance, and limits the game selection to 4-5 games comprised of mostly GW titles, seriously needs to re-examine what they do for a living.
Like seriously when an
amateur that only started in this industry not long ago is making better recommendations than you and that's not even his primary job...
Then again if you browse the sub-forums of places like [H], TechReport, PCPer and TPU, their forum members/readers are so heavily biased towards a certain brand that these sites are just catering to their readership base. I mean when your site picks and chooses what metrics matters in which generation, sometimes favouring price/perf, other times perf/watt, other times VRAM, other times absolute performance, then it has no consistency. Also, what did you expect out of a site that blames AMD for not having CF profiles in GW games when it's outside of their control?
Facebook
Twitter