Upgrade 2gb GTX 760 to 4gb GTX 960?

[xorbe]

There isn't a big gap between the GTX 970 and the GTX 960 from a price/performance stand-point --- the GTX 960 actually offers more value from this metric.

By jove you are right, the 960 is 12% more perf per USD.

 

[Techhog]

By jove you are right, the 960 is 12% more perf per USD.

Which is usually the case with midrange cards. You need to compare either within the same performance segment, or within the same price segment.

 

[SirPauly]

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8923/SweetSpot.jpg

Where the GTX 960 is targeting -- 66 percent are playing with a 660 or older sku --- when compared to a GTX 760 more-so evolutionary and incremental. Simple point.

Does the GTX 960 offer value over a GTX 760? No, not really.

 

[RussianSensation]

There isn't a big gap between the GTX 970 and the GTX 960 from a price/performance stand-point --- the GTX 960 actually offers more value from this metric.

1. You cannot be serious. It absolutely does not.

970 is 57% faster at 1080P, 63% at 1440P, 98% faster at 4K. The last 2 metrics are really important since they foreshadow how well a card will handle future games as GPU demands increase.
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/20216-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-i-sli/16#pagehead

Considering 960 2GB version is worthless for gaming over the next 2 years, we are talking $320 970 vs. $240 960 4GB or just a 33% increase in price for 57%-98% higher performance. 970 wrecks the 960 in price/perf.

2. Here is another major flaw with your point.

Let's say someone buys a 960 today and keeps it for 2 years and gets a Pascal x60 card that's 60-70% faster and keeps that card for 2 years. Guess what, buying a GTX970 today and keeping it for 4 years gives you more or less that level of performance starting now. That means for the next 2 years, having a 970 is akin go having a Pascal "x60" $200 card. This strategy actually saves the gamer $ since he can easily skip x60 Pascal upgrade with a 970 bought today!

3. An after-market 960 is only 11% faster than an after-market 760. Considering more than 1.5 years separates the 2 chips, the 960 is not a real upgrade. It's a waste of $ for someone who has a 760. It's important to keep the OP's upgrade path at the top of mind when making a recommendation.

By jove you are right, the 960 is 12% more perf per USD.

Nope. Since 960 2GB is pointless as it's 2X slower in any scenario where > 2GB of VRAM is needed, the 970 for $320 costs just 33% more than a 960 4GB while offering 57-98% more performance.

As an upgrade from a 760, both 960/960 4GB versions are a complete waste of money for gaming. 960 is more suitable for someone with a GTX460/560/660. But of course for brand agnostic buyers the XFX R9 290 for $240 offers 50-60% more performance for the same price which means the 960 4GB at $240 is a horrendous buy.

Where the GTX 960 is targeting -- 66 percent are playing with a 660 or older sku --- when compared to a GTX 760 more-so evolutionary and incremental. Simple point.

It's interesting how in your defense of the horrible price/performance of the 960 vs. 970 you use a 660 as an upgrade path to a 960. Here is a fun fact:

For $200, 960 is only 44% faster at 1080P against a 660, but 970 for $80 extra dollars is a whopping 57% faster than a $240 960 4GB. That means in reality moving from 660 to a $200 960 is an absolutely horrible purchase while spending $80 extra from a 960 to a 970 makes a whole lot of sense. 960 is really a wretched pile at $200-240. Hands down the worst x60 series NV released since 8600GT(S). Even a mere clock speed bump from an otherwise identical 460 to a 560 produced a greater performance increase than an architectural change from Kepler 760 to a Maxwell 960.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/geforce-gtx-460-560-660-760-960-vergleich/2/

It's really going to be sad seeing all the 960 gamers upgrading to a 60-70% faster Pascal x60 card in 2 years when it was obvious from day 1 that R9 290/970 were the cards to buy.

 

[Techhog]

There isn't a big gap between the GTX 970 and the GTX 960 from a price/performance stand-point --- the GTX 960 actually offers more value from this metric.

Yes, you said that already.

 

[PPB]

1. You cannot be serious. It absolutely does not.

970 is 57% faster at 1080P, 63% at 1440P, 98% faster at 4K. The last 2 metrics are really important since they foreshadow how well a card will handle future games as GPU demands increase.
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/20216-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-i-sli/16#pagehead

Considering 960 2GB version is worthless for gaming over the next 2 years, we are talking $320 970 vs. $240 960 4GB or just a 33% increase in price for 57%-98% higher performance. 970 wrecks the 960 in price/perf.

2. Here is another major flaw with your point.

Let's say someone buys a 960 today and keeps it for 2 years and gets a Pascal x60 card that's 60-70% faster and keeps that card for 2 years. Guess what, buying a GTX970 today and keeping it for 4 years gives you more or less that level of performance starting now. That means for the next 2 years, having a 970 is akin go having a Pascal "x60" $200 card. This strategy actually saves the gamer $ since he can easily skip x60 Pascal upgrade with a 970 bought today!

3. An after-market 960 is only 11% faster than an after-market 760. Considering more than 1.5 years separates the 2 chips, the 960 is not a real upgrade. It's a waste of $ for someone who has a 760. It's important to keep the OP's upgrade path at the top of mind when making a recommendation.



Nope. Since 960 2GB is pointless as it's 2X slower in any scenario where > 2GB of VRAM is needed, the 970 for $320 costs just 33% more than a 960 4GB while offering 57-98% more performance.

As an upgrade from a 760, both 960/960 4GB versions are a complete waste of money for gaming. 960 is more suitable for someone with a GTX460/560/660. But of course for brand agnostic buyers the XFX R9 290 for $240 offers 50-60% more performance for the same price which means the 960 4GB at $240 is a horrendous buy.



It's interesting how in your defense of the horrible price/performance of the 960 vs. 970 you use a 660 as an upgrade path to a 960. Here is a fun fact:

For $200, 960 is only 44% faster at 1080P against a 660, but 970 for $80 extra dollars is a whopping 57% faster than a $240 960 4GB. That means in reality moving from 660 to a $200 960 is an absolutely horrible purchase while spending $80 extra from a 960 to a 970 makes a whole lot of sense. 960 is really a wretched pile at $200-240. Hands down the worst x60 series NV released since 8600GT(S). Even a mere clock speed bump from an otherwise identical 460 to a 560 produced a greater performance increase than an architectural change from Kepler 760 to a Maxwell 960.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/geforce-gtx-460-560-660-760-960-vergleich/2/

It's really going to be sad seeing all the 960 gamers upgrading to a 60-70% faster Pascal x60 card in 2 years when it was obvious from day 1 that R9 290/970 were the cards to buy.

All this would make sense if there wasnt a $130 price difference between a 960 2GB and a 970. Using the 4GB 960 as baseline considering its horrible pricing is a bogus argument, as a 960 4GB in single config per-se wont give you more performance than the 960 in sensitive cases (as in, nothing above 1080p). 960 4GB should be treated as an "I would soon get another one for SLI" kind of upgrade. In this Scheme, the 960 4GB makes some kind of sense (then again, horrible pricing as I have said).

The 290 argument is true for those being able to use newegg or amazon (which ATM has a 290 DD for 260 bucks). If you are really able to buy from those online stores and sport a truly-rated-for 600W PSU, go for it instead of a 960 4GB. There is no other way around that kind of pricing. But guess what? Where I live a 290 Tri-X costs the same as the plain Zotac 970, and newegg is a no-go, and buying from amazon and dealing with Customs forms is such a PITA most people try to stay away from that. TL;DR: Not everyone lives in NA to go for a good 290 deal.


Returning to the first point, NV really dropped the ball leaving such a huge pricing difference between both cards, and holding the 960Ti for a while longer. Im in the same position as the OP (but instead just considering the 960 2GB model and not the 4GB one) and it is frustrating having to opt between a 11% perf upgrade and a 70% (with according pricing difference) one. My sweet spot would have been a 40% perf increase. which is what I would have expected from a new generation on the same process node (and sits in line with the hyped 40% IPC gains between Maxwell and Kepler's shaders).

 

[RussianSensation]

All this would make sense if there wasnt a $130 price difference between a 960 2GB and a 970. Using the 4GB 960 as baseline considering its horrible pricing is a bogus argument, as a 960 4GB in single config per-se wont give you more performance than the 960 in sensitive cases (as in, nothing above 1080p). 960 4GB should be treated as an "I would soon get another one for SLI" kind of upgrade.

What are you going to do with a 960 2GB? It stutters and chokes in so many games already due to 2GB of VRAM. Mere days before we see what GTA V does to 2GB cards. What about 2H 2015/2016 games? $200 wasted into the toilet from his 760.

The $130 price difference needs to be considered in terms of context. First, he is already coming off a $200-250 card which means what is he getting for a $200 cash outlay vs. $320 cash outlay? $200 gets him just 11% more performance, but $320 gets him 60%+, a huge difference for an extra $130. Secondly, should he get a 960, that means in 2016 he is getting yet another $200 card as I said because ultimately 760 and 960 will become obsolete at the same time. This strategy actually costs him more money in the next 2 years than selling a 760 today and buying a 970.

I am curious to know what 280/280X/290/970 cost in your country compared to the 960.

Canada - Asus DCUII 290 = $320 vs. EVGA 960 4GB = $330.
UK - XFX 290 = 232 pounds vs. 199 pounds Gainward 960 4GB

960 is so poorly priced in so many countries, it's hard to imagine anyone who is brand agnostic buying it.

Returning to the first point, NV really dropped the ball leaving such a huge pricing difference between both cards, and holding the 960Ti for a while longer.

Honestly just wait for price drops on a 970 or for R9 300 series. Do not get that 960 2GB card or even the 4GB one. NV delivered the least impressive x60 card in years. 960Ti can't get here fast enough.

 

[SirPauly]

1. You cannot be serious. It absolutely does not.

Sure it does -- TechPowerups findings easily show this!

Considering 960 2GB version is worthless for gaming over the next 2 years

I don't think it's worthless -- may have to sacrifice some settings in some titles.

An after-market 960 is only 11% faster than an after-market 760. Considering more than 1.5 years separates the 2 chips, the 960 is not a real upgrade. It's a waste of $ for someone who has a 760. It's important to keep the OP's upgrade path at the top of mind when making a recommendation.

Never said it was and very obvious it's not and clearly offered this. It was never marketed as such to me.

960 is more suitable for someone with a GTX460/560/660

Hey, my point! And where the sku was targeted, imho.

 

[RussianSensation]

Sure it does -- TechPowerups findings easily show this!

No, they do not since they are static/fixed in time. For example back then a Gigabyte Gaming 970 was $360-370 but today it's $320. I am using today's market prices. Do the maths. $240 vs. $320 for 60%+ more performance. Doesn't take a math genius to calculate that 970 offers better price/perf, while against a $240 after-market 290, 960 is a joke.

Secondly, in the context of the OP, $200 for 11% more performance or $320 for 60% more perf. Do you need me to calculate price/perf ratios for you? How you keep managing to miss this point is remarkable.

I don't think it's worthless -- may have to sacrifice some settings in some titles.

And why would you do that when R9 290 with lifetime warranty is $240? Would you even try defending the 960 if R9 290 was an NV card? People don't exactly buy a $200 mid-range card and keep it for 6 months because budget gamers are the ones more likely to keep their card longer. You failed to account for all future games coming out in the next 2 years, including TW3, GTA V, The Division, Star Wars Battlefront, Star Citizen, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided. Every single one of those titles could have next gen textures that most likely will severely hinder a 2GB card. You say to turn down settings but turning down textures produces one of the greatest reductions in graphical quality out of all the IQ settings. Textures on the PC is one of the critical things that separates PC games from consoles.

Frankly, it's amazing that to this day you are defending a 960 when a 50% faster 290 and a 60% faster 970 smash it in price/perf.

Hey, my point! And where the sku was targeted, imho.

Where the SKU was targeted as an upgrade path is not enough of a justification to buy it if it fails miserably against other SKUs from NV or AMD. 960 clearly fails. Name 1 time in the history of AMD/ATI vs. NV where for nearly the same price (4GB vs. 4GB) or $40-50 more (2GB vs. 4GB) you could buy an AMD/NV/ATI card that was 50-60% faster than the competitor in the $200-300 space? I dare you to find such an example in 15 years of GPU history.

One of the most defining characteristics of mid-range cards in the $200-300 bracket is that they should offer amazing price/performance and price/performance curve should start to flatten towards the top cards. This does not happen with the 960. The opposite happens as the price/performance curve curves upwards as we edge towards R9 290/970. Based on the performance of the 960 2GB, it should cost $150, maybe $160.

In your comments, you also didn't acknowledge the actual FPS. This matters a great deal in the case of a 960 since its FPS and corresponding frame times bomb against the 290/970.

When I kept pointing out to you that R9 290/970 are 50-60%+ faster but those percentages meant nothing to you, it should be evident now by looking at FPS differences that 960 is grossly overpriced for the performance it offers. R9 280/280X/290/970 are all superior for gaming on the price/performance curve. Since the OP isn't interested in an AMD card, the only logical choice on that curve is the 970.

 

[riversend]

Lots of prices being bandied about, so as of 11pm EST in the U.S. on 11 April, here are the lowest prices on Newegg for the cards being discussed, including shipping. Rebates and promos included, also cards with free games.

XFX Double Dissipation R9-290A-EDFD Radeon R9 290 4GB 512-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card - $240AR
XFX Double Dissipation R9-290X-EDFD Radeon R9 290X 4GB 512-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card - $280ARAP
GIGABYTE GV-R928XOC-3GD REV3 Radeon R9 280X 3GB 384-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready ATX Ultra Durable Video Card - $222
ZOTAC ZT-90301-10M GeForce GTX 960 2GB 128-Bit DDR5 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card - $192 (includes Witcher 3)
EVGA 04G-P4-3966-KR GeForce GTX 960 4GB 128-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 SLI Support SuperSC ACX 2.0+ Video Card - $240 (includes Witcher 3)</
Or
PNY VCGGTX9604XPB GeForce GTX 960 4GB 128-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 SLI Support XLR8 Video Card - $233
ZOTAC ZT-90101-10P GeForce GTX 970 4GB 256-Bit DDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support G-SYNC Support Video Card - $313 (includes Witcher 3)

 

[RussianSensation]

ZOTAC ZT-90101-10P GeForce GTX 970 4GB 256-Bit DDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support G-SYNC Support Video Card - $313 (includes Witcher 3)

I would take EVGA ACX 2.0 SSC with 1317mhz Boost for $315. Alternatively, MSI Gaming 970 and Gigabyte Gaming 970 can be had for $320 a pop.

 

[SirPauly]

No, they do not since they are static/fixed in time. For example back then a Gigabyte Gaming 970 was $360-370 but today it's $320. I am using today's market prices. Do the maths. $240 vs. $320 for 60%+ more performance. Doesn't take a math genius to calculate that 970 offers better price/perf, while against a $240 after-market 290, 960 is a joke.

There are cheaper GTX 960's. The GTX 960 isn't dominate but certainly not a joke. I have trouble with your math!

 

[xorbe]

1. You cannot be serious. It absolutely does not.

970 is 57% faster at 1080P, 63% at 1440P, 98% faster at 4K.

Nobody will be using a 960 to push 1440 or 4K, lol.

 

[mohit9206]

I agree. the tech press is more looking like paid pumpers. take for instance hardocp's reviews of GTX 960. It has got disgusting to the point where they now believe a GTX 960 overclocked to the max can beat the R9 280X across the board. They top it off by saying that R9 280X does not have good OC headroom. are they stupid enough to think the readers believe that kind of crap ? I believe hardocp's charts are primarily cooked. They have the conclusion already in their mind before they start the review.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...0_g1_gaming_video_card_review/11#.VSimmPmUeSo

To highlight how pathetic those guys are here is a much more realistic review

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/28.html

the GTX 960 OC is still 8 - 12% (1080/1440p) slower than R9 280X and even if overclocked to the max will barely match a R9 280X. here are a few other reviews

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-01/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-im-test/3/

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-GTX-960-Grafikkarte-259742/Specials/Test-Review-1148357/2/



As you say I totally agree that GTX 960 is a horrible card in terms of generational upgrade. This also shows us how the review sites like hardocp are pimping the products of Nvidia. :thumbsdown:

Thanks raghu for the interesting information.Which also causes me to wonder why Anandtech didn't review the GTX 960? Were they scared if they did an honest review, Nvidia will be angry at them or if they did a promotional type review where they called it great performance! great value for money!, then Anandtech readers will call them an Nvidia shill. Is that why to avoid either of the situation, they just didn't review the GTX 960 in the first place?
Because i cannot find any 960 review from Anandtech. Makes me wonder what's going on..

 

[raghu78]

Thanks raghu for the interesting information.Which also causes me to wonder why Anandtech didn't review the GTX 960? Were they scared if they did an honest review, Nvidia will be angry at them or if they did a promotional type review where they called it great performance! great value for money!, then Anandtech readers will call them an Nvidia shill. Is that why to avoid either of the situation, they just didn't review the GTX 960 in the first place?
Because i cannot find any 960 review from Anandtech. Makes me wonder what's going on..

no idea on the reasons why anandtech did not review 960. But any site like hardocp which gives a raving review to the GTX 960 just does not have any credibility. the 970 and 980 were significant leaps over 770 and 780.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Matrix/28.html

the 960 is not such a leap over 760. end of discussion. no sugar coating here. I think the hwc review of the reference 960 was honest and came out with the right criticism at Nvidia for not having moved perf at all in terms of generational upgrade.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...68697-nvidia-gtx-960-reference-review-16.html

 

[mohit9206]

no idea on the reasons why anandtech did not review 960. But any site like hardocp which gives a raving review to the GTX 960 just does not have any credibility. the 970 and 980 were significant leaps over 770 and 780.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Matrix/28.html

the 960 is not such a leap over 760. end of discussion. no sugar coating here. I think the hwc review of the reference 960 was honest and came out with the right criticism at Nvidia for not having moved perf at all in terms of generational upgrade.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...68697-nvidia-gtx-960-reference-review-16.html

Toms Hardware also gave Gtx 960 a good review stating at MSRP of $200 for stock card and $210 for overclocked card, its the best card in its price and no reason to buy another card.
" GeForce GTX 960 is a lot more interesting up against AMD's Radeon R9 285. When you consider the fact that you can get a factory-overclocked GeForce GTX 960 for $210, there's even less reason to look elsewhere."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-12.html
So toms hardware is also in cahoots with Nvidia?

 

[SirPauly]

no idea on the reasons why anandtech did not review 960. But any site like hardocp which gives a raving review to the GTX 960 just does not have any credibility. the 970 and 980 were significant leaps over 770 and 780.

At least Hardocp reviewed multiple GTX 960 sku's; investigated GTX 960 with higher resolutions and comparisons to a GTX 770 and 280X; investigated overclocks and a max overclock comparison.

 

[RussianSensation]

There are cheaper GTX 960's. The GTX 960 isn't dominate but certainly not a joke. I have trouble with your math!

960 2GB is a serious compromise for modern gaming because it implies compromises in texture quality much closer to PS4's to console level from day 1. Therefore, we are looking at 960 4GB at $240. It's interesting how for years you keep ignoring VRAM as some paper spec as if it doesn't matter. You actually did this for 3 generations in a row now - GTX470/570 1.28GB, 580 1.5GB vs. HD6950/6970 2GB, you did it again during GTX670/680 2GB vs. 7970/7970Ghz 3GB and here you are doing it again with 280X 3GB/290 4GB vs. 960 2GB, implying we should not care at all for the 3-4GB versions of cards since well "you can just turn down some settings." Are you kidding me? Why buy a $200-300 GPU in the first place? Might as well get an Xbox 1 or PS4 then! You really painted yourself in a corner with defending 960 as showing you are lacking objectivity that even when NV releases turds like 650/650Ti and 960 you still defend them. I am disappointed because I truly thought at one point that you were objective in most of your recommendations. Clearly here you have both ignored VRAM limitations, the OP where his upgrade path is 760, and you ignored the actual FPS delivered by the upper 290/970 cards by focusing only on price, and you ignored the superior price/performance of 290/970 based on pure mathematics which do not need subjectivity. It's eye opening really how you literally go out of your way to NOT say anything negative about a 960. Why is that, are you not allowed to publicly criticize any NV product because it sure sounds like it....

One more time. An after-market GTX960 2GB/4GB costs $180-240 and is only 11% faster than an after-market 760. A GTX970 is 70% faster than a GTX760 at 1080P.

Math:

$180 / 11% = $16.36 for each 1% increase in performance
$320 / 70% = $4.57 for each 1% increase in performance

Let me know if you still need help understanding how price/performance for the OP works in terms of his upgrade path and why 960 is such a terrible buy overall. Under no circumstances should the OP consider the 960 as a viable upgrade path unless his cash outlay is $10-20 after re-selling the 960. Even then, it's not a real upgrade.

Toms Hardware also gave Gtx 960 a good review stating at MSRP of $200 for stock card and $210 for overclocked card, its the best card in its price and no reason to buy another card.

Believe what you want. Are reviewer's conclusions some kind of a rule of thumb book or a bible written in stone? The whole point of consulting various review sites is to get a better idea of the overall picture. Do you just accept an opinion of the first editorial you read? Did you bother to look at 5-10 reviews across the Internet and from different continents to get a better picture, especially considering how few games HardOCP uses and how HardOCP continues to ignore the existence of a $240 R9 290 and ANY game that uses > 2GB of VRAM at 1080P in their 960 review?

1080P testing.

$180 GTX960 2GB = 61% => Price/performance ratio of 2.86 (where lower is better)
$240 After-market R9 290 = 93% (or 52.45% faster) => Price/performance ratio of 2.58 <winner>

Not to mention current and future games will use > 2GB of VRAM (this is 100% undeniable as per Wolfenstein NWO, Shadow of Mordor, AC Unity, Dead Rising 3). Some of you guys and unfortunately some reviewers like HardOCP and TechReport blatantly ignore the massive performance drop with 2GB of VRAM cards in those games and do not have the foresight that future games will use > 2GB of VRAM in the next 2 years. That means the real comparison for anyone in the US who actually intends to play modern games over the next 2 years is a $240 960 4GB vs. $240-250 R9 290 4GB. 960 loses by 52%+. Even if you use the $180 960 2GB, it still loses. Don't want an AMD card, 970 still smokes the $240 960 4GB in price/performance. BTW, did you also ignore the part where a 960 uses upgrading to a 60-70% faster x60 Pascal card will end up with ~ GTX970 level performance but 2 years from now? What a waste of time and money when you can just buy the 970 now. How this point went unnoticed is telling as well.

Any questions, or do you need HardOCP's help to determine price/performance? (In case you are wondering the 960 HardOCP review you linked is total garbage compared to the vast amount of games tested by Computerbase or Sweclockers. Considering HardOCP purposely avoided higher textures/AA games/situations where > 2GB of VRAM is required to hide 960's greatest weakness, what conclusions do you expect out of such a flawed review? Why would a website do that when it's a 100% disservice to the consumer? Did you notice hard TechPowerUP showed the major performance drop 960 2GB suffers in Shadow of Mordor and AC Unity? Are we supposed to just ignore this as if those games don't matter? Can you say with 100% confidence that 2GB of VRAM will be enough for all 1080P gaming in the next 2 years? Are we supposed to ignore history of cards that suffered from lower VRAM like 8800GT 256MB, 8800GTS 320MB, 5870 1GB, GTX470/570 1.28GB, etc.?

At least Hardocp reviewed multiple GTX 960 sku's; investigated GTX 960 with higher resolutions and comparisons to a GTX 770 and 280X; investigated overclocks and a max overclock comparison.

Changes nothing about the fact that they excluded game testing where > 2GB of VRAM is required/essential for smooth frames and that they only tested a limited number of games, of which a large variety are GW titles. This painted 960 is a very positive light but nearly every other review other there has 280X beating a 960. What are you suggesting that we ignore 95% of reviews and believe HardOCP's limited testing methodologies in that review? Should we ignore the existing of a $240 R9 290 just because it's $40 more expensive? You cannot be serious.

 

[SirPauly]

Maybe you missed this:

My constructive nit-pick since the 28nm node was this with launch msrp's over-all: Even though the node and arches were more-so substantial and significant the price performance felt more-so incremental and evolutionary.

Does the GTX 960 offer value over a GTX 760? No, not really.

It's pretty obvious and most reviews mention it. However, the choice may be compelling to GTX 660, 560 and 460 owners that may appreciate Maxwell's strengths, efficiency, features, software and ecosystem.

unfortunately some reviewers like HardOCP and TechReport blatantly ignore the massive performance drop with 2GB of VRAM cards in those games and do not have the foresight that future games will use > 2GB of VRAM in the next 2 years.

Make things up:

To us, it seems like bandwidth isn't so much the issue as is memory capacity in recently released video games. 2GB is constraining in many popular games today even at 1080p including Far Cry 4, Watch Dogs, Dragon Age Inquisition. Our Far Cry 4 Features Article has proven that it needs at least 3GB of video RAM to maximize settings and run smoothly at 1080p. As we look forward to the future of games this year like Witcher 3, Grand Theft Auto V and many others, 2GB seems constraining to the gameplay experience. 2GB of VRAM may be the doom of this card for 2015 games, but we truly do not know yet.

We think that any card in the $200 price range today should have no less than 3GB of video RAM for a good 1080p gameplay experience. If you want a good 1440p experience then 4GB of video RAM is recommended. We will have to look toward add-in-board partners to offer up 4GB versions of GeForce GTX 960, which may be worth it and may show a difference in new game titles. We hope to get some to test this. Naturally, 4GB models will be more expensive.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._960_gaming_video_card_review/10#.VSq1tZNLfuM

 

[Techhog]

All this would make sense if there wasnt a $130 price difference between a 960 2GB and a 970. Using the 4GB 960 as baseline considering its horrible pricing is a bogus argument, as a 960 4GB in single config per-se wont give you more performance than the 960 in sensitive cases (as in, nothing above 1080p). 960 4GB should be treated as an "I would soon get another one for SLI" kind of upgrade. In this Scheme, the 960 4GB makes some kind of sense (then again, horrible pricing as I have said).

The 290 argument is true for those being able to use newegg or amazon (which ATM has a 290 DD for 260 bucks). If you are really able to buy from those online stores and sport a truly-rated-for 600W PSU, go for it instead of a 960 4GB. There is no other way around that kind of pricing. But guess what? Where I live a 290 Tri-X costs the same as the plain Zotac 970, and newegg is a no-go, and buying from amazon and dealing with Customs forms is such a PITA most people try to stay away from that. TL;DR: Not everyone lives in NA to go for a good 290 deal.


Returning to the first point, NV really dropped the ball leaving such a huge pricing difference between both cards, and holding the 960Ti for a while longer. Im in the same position as the OP (but instead just considering the 960 2GB model and not the 4GB one) and it is frustrating having to opt between a 11% perf upgrade and a 70% (with according pricing difference) one. My sweet spot would have been a 40% perf increase. which is what I would have expected from a new generation on the same process node (and sits in line with the hyped 40% IPC gains between Maxwell and Kepler's shaders).

Since when do you need a 600W PSU for a 290?

 

[PPB]

Since when do you need a 600W PSU for a 290?

The moment you realize psus tend to lose 5% of their capacity per year and you actually pretend to keep it for more than 2 years (i know i do) , pushing them beyond 75% load hurts their efficiency and you actually dont have those 600w at disposal for tje 12v but instead you have 100w devoted to the other output voltages. Yeah those would be my reasons to overbuild my psu at least 100w than you probably would.

 

[Techhog]

The moment you realize psus tend to lose 5% of their capacity per year and you actually pretend to keep it for more than 2 years (i know i do) , pushing them beyond 75% load hurts their efficiency and you actually dont have those 600w at disposal for tje 12v but instead you have 100w devoted to the other output voltages. Yeah those would be my reasons to overbuild my psu at least 100w than you probably would.

Fair enough.

 

[ElFenix]

There isn't a big gap between the GTX 970 and the GTX 960 from a price/performance stand-point --- the GTX 960 actually offers more value from this metric.

Lower end cards always offer better price/performance. You pay for performance on an exponential scale in pretty much everything.

Edit: but see the other posts in this thread

 

[RussianSensation]

The moment you realize psus tend to lose 5% of their capacity per year and you actually pretend to keep it for more than 2 years (i know i do) , pushing them beyond 75% load hurts their efficiency and you actually dont have those 600w at disposal for tje 12v but instead you have 100w devoted to the other output voltages. Yeah those would be my reasons to overbuild my psu at least 100w than you probably would.

I don't think I agree with that statement at all. I purchased my Corsair HX520W in the summer of 2007. Are you suggesting by now it only has the capability to sustain 345W of power (520W x 0.95^8 years)? I've actually pushed 465W of load though it based on my at the wall measurements, after accounting for power efficiency factor. I've tested it with an overclocked HD7970Ghz and an i5 and it handles it with aplomb (tested over a week 24/7 99% load for both components too). That means a 500-550W solid PSU should be more than enough for an R9 290 style card.

Besides, you can regularly find awesome deals like the $50 Antec Gold 750W on Newegg if you actually look for them. The OP seems to have disappeared from this thread a long time ago. Not sure there is much point on regurgitating the same stuff as it doesn't appear he was that interested in the advice.

 

[SirPauly]

Lower end cards always offer better price/performance. You pay for performance on an exponential scale in pretty much everything.

Edit: but see the other posts in this thread

Indeed! I don't disagree!

imho,

To be clear:

The GTX 960 doesn't really make a lot of sense from a GTX 760 and not really a generational performance upgrade and more a side grade with Maxwell's strengths. The obvious upgrade path is the GTX 970 if it is in a potential gamers budget, and if they desire to only purchase the nVidia brand. This is kind of obvious and many third party reviews pointed this out.

I can say this about TitanX, 980, 970 and 960: Even though this Maxwell architecture is substantial and significant the price/performance is more-so incremental and evolutionary compared to past generations.

Ultimately, the market decides and the market seems to embrace the pricing. Even, with steep competition from AMD's price/performance offerings.