What's the general opinion on the GTX 960?

[dpk33]

I've recently RMA'd an EVGA GTX 570 and I found out today that I'm getting a GTX 960 in return. I've been searching around for benchmarks, only found maybe two sources (maybe I just don't know where to look) and they're not very consistent.

The GTX 960 is obviously going to be better than the GTX 570 it's replacing, but I found it a little weird that it gets beaten by the GTX 760/GTX 670 in some benchmarks and only barely exceeds them in other benchmarks. It also gets beaten by an almost 4 year old 7970 - not that it's a bad card or anything, just expected more out of a card that's 2 or 3 generations newer. This leads me to believe it's not a very good card.

I can get a 280x for cheap and sell the GTX 960 off if the general consensus is that there's nothing useful about it. Any reasons why I should keep it? Any why I shouldn't? Interested in input/opinions

 

[Zodiark1593]

At msrp ($200), it's definitely overpriced, though prices seem to fall in around $160 nowadays which is much more fair. Performance-wise, it seems too fast to be the true gtx 750 ti successor, yet at the same time is hard to consider it a true 760 successor. Kind of an odd place. Perhaps a GTX 955 would be a better name.

You should be reasonably satisfied though. Most coolers paired with this card tend to be quite overkill, and in turn run extremely quiet, passively under lighter loads.

 

[SolMiester]

Well, I would say a new replacement card better than the RMA is a win!

 

[xorbe]

Nothing wrong with 960 except for price is regarded as a bit high. Enjoy the upgrade over your 570.

 

[happy medium]

I've recently RMA'd an EVGA GTX 570 and I found out today that I'm getting a GTX 960 in return. I've been searching around for benchmarks, only found maybe two sources (maybe I just don't know where to look) and they're not very consistent.

The GTX 960 is obviously going to be better than the GTX 570 it's replacing, but I found it a little weird that it gets beaten by the GTX 760/GTX 670 in some benchmarks and only barely exceeds them in other benchmarks. It also gets beaten by an almost 4 year old 7970 - not that it's a bad card or anything, just expected more out of a card that's 2 or 3 generations newer. This leads me to believe it's not a very good card.

I can get a 280x for cheap and sell the GTX 960 off if the general consensus is that there's nothing useful about it. Any reasons why I should keep it? Any why I shouldn't? Interested in input/opinions

Most gtx960's should overclock 25% faster , that's what makes it worth its 160$ asking price. When overclocked it should be right up there with a gtx770, 280x/7970. They run cool and quiet and only about 125 watts when overclocked.

 

[thesmokingman]

slow

 

[Keysplayr]

slow

If by slow you mean not slow, then yeah.

 

[thesmokingman]

I can get a 280x for cheap and sell the GTX 960 off if the general consensus is that there's nothing useful about it. Any reasons why I should keep it? Any why I shouldn't? Interested in input/opinions

Just for the giggles. Check the dates, runs were a month apart. Do ya think you could pull that off with 960s?

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/2563759/fs/2927368

 

[Magic Carpet]

I can get a 280x for cheap and sell the GTX 960 off if the general consensus is that there's nothing useful about it. Any reasons why I should keep it? Any why I shouldn't? Interested in input/opinions

Personally, I'd sell it and get something with at least 3GB of VRAM. There are situations where you can be VRAM starved before GPU limited (I have personally experienced this in GTA V on my GTX 670 2GB). But if you run older games, or nothing demanding at all, it's an okay, quite power-efficient card.

 

[dpk33]

Well, seeing as I'm getting the card for free anyway, I think another way to phrase it is:

What sets the GTX 960 apart from similarly performing (or even stronger performing) cards of older generations?

Happymedium mentioned the lower power consumption, as well as low heat/noise. All of them definitely a plus for me. I've also been looking into dynamic super resolution (DSR), which also seem to be interesting.

Another question: if you were able to get either for free, would you personally go for the used 280x or the GTX 960 from RMA?

Personally, I'd sell it and get something with at least 3GB of VRAM. There are situations where you can be VRAM starved before GPU limited (I have personally experienced this in GTA V on my GTX 670 2GB). But if you run older games, or nothing demanding at all, it's an okay, quite power-efficient card.

My games typically vary, but I don't usually play anything too demanding. Plus I'm on a 1920x1200 monitor, so maybe vram shouldn't be a problem?

 

[thesmokingman]

Well, seeing as I'm getting the card for free anyway, I think another way to phrase it is:

What sets the GTX 960 apart from similarly performing (or even stronger performing) cards of older generations?

Happymedium mentioned the lower power consumption, as well as low heat/noise. All of them definitely a plus for me. I've also been looking into dynamic super resolution (DSR), which also seem to be interesting.

Another question: if you were able to get either for free, would you personally go for the used 280x or the GTX 960 from RMA?



My games typically vary, but I don't usually play anything too demanding. Plus I'm on a 1920x1200 monitor, so maybe vram shouldn't be a problem?

The only plus side is the hdmi port on this card. The hdmi port is 2.0 meaning it can run 4K@60, but the irony is that the card can never run anything that large of a resolution so it's reduced just the port.

 

[Magic Carpet]

My games typically vary, but I don't usually play anything too demanding. Plus I'm on a 1920x1200 monitor, so maybe vram shouldn't be a problem?

Well, I was playing the game on my backup 1680x1050 panel and I had to fiddle with the settings quite a bit to stay within my VRAM limit, mind you with those settings my GPU usage hovered around the ~80% mark during the game, so I was clearly VRAM limited before GPU limited. Dying Light is another example, where I had a slideshow for a few seconds when I was out of VRAM. The extra VRAM would of come in handy, most definitely.

 

[ShintaiDK]

GTX570 to GTX960 for free is a good deal. Specially in newer games it gets better. But if you can trade that again for free to a 280X it may be an option. However 280X is GCN1.0 and FL11.1.

 

[Spanners]

Generally I don't think it represents particularly good value, as you've stated it's not that impressive in comparison to older cards like the 760 and 7970. If you were buying new I think you could do better.

As a warranty replacement for a 570 though it's pretty sweet especially if you had the 1280MB version. I don't see the need for you to look for something else keeping in mind you don't play demanding games and efficiency is important to you.

Edit: You may be VRAM limited if you decide to use DSR, at least in anything semi-demanding, very old titles you may get away with it.

 

[Seba]

There is no point in selling a new GTX 960 just to buy a second hand R9 280X.

It also gets beaten by an almost 4 year old 7970 - not that it's a bad card or anything, just expected more out of a card that's 2 or 3 generations newer.

HD 7970 was a high end card when it was launched. GTX 960 is far from top range in its generation.

 

[dpk33]

There is no point in selling a new GTX 960 just to buy a second hand R9 280X.

Yeah, I'm most likely going to keep the 960, since I'm getting that lifetime warranty from EVGA. Plus selling + rebuying is just too much hassle.

HD 7970 was a high end card when it was launched. GTX 960 is far from top range in its generation.

I view the GTX 960 in the same light as I did the GTX 460, my rationale being that they're both mid-range for their generation. The GTX 460 matched/slightly beat the GTX 285, the fastest single gpu card from the previous generation. Likewise for the GTX 260 versus the 9800 GTX. However, the GTX 960 doesn't seem to fare so well against the GTX 780 ti.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Yeah, I'm most likely going to keep the 960, since I'm getting that lifetime warranty from EVGA. Plus selling + rebuying is just too much hassle.



I view the GTX 960 in the same light as I did the GTX 460, my rationale being that they're both mid-range for their generation. The GTX 460 matched/slightly beat the GTX 285, the fastest single gpu card from the previous generation. Likewise for the GTX 260 versus the 9800 GTX. However, the GTX 960 doesn't seem to fare so well against the GTX 780 ti.

I believe the 200 series to 400 series brought a node shrink, something that is very long overdue now.

 

[dpk33]

I believe the 200 series to 400 series brought a node shrink, something that is very long overdue now.

Right, I definitely forgot to take that into account. But even so, shouldn't the change in architecture (Kepler-> Maxwell) result in a performance increase?

I'm thinking along the lines of Intel's tick-tock scheme; even with the same die size, Sandy Bridge has a decent increase in performance over Westmere (Nehalem) clock-for-clock. Unless it doesn't work the same way for GPUs.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Right, I definitely forgot to take that into account. But even so, shouldn't the change in architecture (Kepler-> Maxwell) result in a performance increase?

I'm thinking along the lines of Intel's tick-tock scheme; even with the same die size, Sandy Bridge has a decent increase in performance over Westmere (Nehalem) clock-for-clock. Unless it doesn't work the same way for GPUs.

Well, if you have a look at the specs between the gtx 760 and the 960, the 960 contains fewer resources particularly on the memory side where it loses 1/2 of it's bandwidth. Shader count and tmus also took a cut, yet even with these factors, performance is still quite comparable, yet with a smaller die size, less power use and all on the same 28nm node. While gamers (and myself) are going "yawn", from an engineering standpoint, it's quite impressive. That memory bandwidth is probably what bottlenecks it compared to the 760 though.

Overclocked, you should be approaching or beating the GTX 770. For some reason, Nvidia went very conservative on clock speeds as most 960 chips are hitting 1500 MHz without issue with some samples cracking 1600 MHz. Aggressive factory overclocks see boost clocks going well into the 1400 MHz range.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

For some reason, Nvidia went very conservative on clock speeds as most 960 chips are hitting 1500 MHz without issue with some samples cracking 1600 MHz. Aggressive factory overclocks see boost clocks going well into the 1400 MHz range.

Is this really true? From TPU's reviews, I see that the 960 doesn't overclock the way the 980 does.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_960_STRIX_OC/32.html

The best they achieved out of 4 cards was a 1410 MHz overclock. It seems that memory is the real winner there.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Is this really true? From TPU's reviews, I see that the 960 doesn't overclock the way the 980 does.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_960_STRIX_OC/32.html

The best they achieved out of 4 cards was a 1410 MHz overclock. It seems that memory is the real winner there.

The actual boost clock, temps allowing, actually exceed official boost clock by a pretty significant margin. Case in point, bone stock, my EVGA SSC GTX 960 has an official boost clock of 1342 MHz. However, under sufficient load, and temps/power allowing, 1440 MHz is it's actual maximum boost. While the below pic was from a very brief session of Uningine Valley, my card can maintain that speed indefinitely even under multi-hour rendering sessions via Blender Cycles. This is out of the box, not one bit of tweaking done.

What this means is one would need to be mindful while overclocking as GPU Boost can potentially exceed what you've intended. Unless you're monitoring clocks in real-time, most are unlikely to catch this.

 

[lopri]

I'd say just keep the GTX 960 and enjoy it. It is an impressively efficient card. No overclocking necessary. The card will dynamically change its clock anyway and I have never felt that overclocking enables me to play a game at a setting that was unplayable without overclocking. All it does is get you higher benchmark scores.

 

[Leyawiin]

You made out like a bandit if they're giving you a GTX 960 for a GTX 570. I own one right now, I at one time owned a GTX 670 and with new drivers favoring Maxwell its pulling ahead. I would estimate its about as fast as a GTX 680 now (and definitely faster than a GTX 760). I think you would be quite foolish to get rid of it when it cost you nothing for an R9 280X (which is not tremendously faster). If you're going to do an upgrade do it right, sell it and get a GTX 970. The 960 is quiet, cool running, low power usage and 35-40% faster than your GTX 570. I don't understand how you could be disappointed with that RMA upgrade.

 

[Zodiark1593]

You made out like a bandit if they're giving you a GTX 960 for a GTX 570. I own one right now, I at one time owned a GTX 670 and with new drivers favoring Maxwell its pulling ahead. I would estimate its about as fast as a GTX 680 now (and definitely faster than a GTX 760). I think you would be quite foolish to get rid of it when it cost you nothing for an R9 280X (which is not tremendously faster). If you're going to do an upgrade do it right, sell it and get a GTX 970. The 960 is quiet, cool running, low power usage and 35-40% faster than your GTX 570. I don't understand how you could be disappointed with that RMA upgrade.

Agreed, were I in EVGA's position, op would be getting a 750 ti instead.

 

[Headfoot]

Right, I definitely forgot to take that into account. But even so, shouldn't the change in architecture (Kepler-> Maxwell) result in a performance increase?

I'm thinking along the lines of Intel's tick-tock scheme; even with the same die size, Sandy Bridge has a decent increase in performance over Westmere (Nehalem) clock-for-clock. Unless it doesn't work the same way for GPUs.

It did. You're getting hung up on the name. The GTX 960 is not like other x60 parts. It's a x50 part with a x60 name. They started doing this in Kepler. Think about this: GTX 560 Ti had 384 cores, top end GTX 580 had 512. The x60 Ti part had 75% of the shaders as the top part. The 560 was 336 of 512, 65% of the shaders. The 570 has 480 of 512, or 93.75% of the shaders.

The 960 has half the shaders of a 980, which has 66% of the shaders of a Titan X (e.g. full die of Maxwell 2 architecture). 960 = 1/3rd a Titan X, 33%. The 980 has 66% of the shaders of top end part and 66% of the memory and bandwidth. For comparison, the GTX 550 Ti has 37.5% of the shaders of the GTX 580. Thus, the 960 is significantly more like a 550 Ti than it is like a 560 or 560 Ti.

In reality, the 960 is a sub x50 Ti level card with the x60 name slapped on it. Any way you slice it, it's just not the same. That's why this card seems slower than you think it ought to be.

In any case, the card you have now is objectively faster and has more VRAM, so you got a free upgrade. Not too shabby