GTX 960

[Sunako_Nakahara]

you can get an SSD 250gig for 99 USD at micro center right now
also the only software diff. is afterburner and are you overclocking with it? besides that im not using any sofdtware from EVGA

[Ceodore]

you can get an SSD 250gig for 99 USD at micro senter right now
also the only software diff. is afterburner and are you overclocking with it? besides that im not using any sofdtware from EVGA

I try to avoid any overclocking I can. Yeah, I know it's more bang, but the hardware is already over the top for what I'm using it for that I don't really need it. Even at max settings with DX11 and 1080p I see absolutely no drop in FPS no matter what the situation. Even massive hunts, etc, and my card still sits pretty between 50 and 60 C. Also, 100 dollars for 1/4 my current hard drive's capacity? I get that SSD is great and all for speed, but 10 seconds longer times isn't a big deal for me if I'm saving 3 or 4 hundred dollars. I'd consider getting one for along side my main hard drive, but never to replace. Only for the game type of thing.

[Illya]

Running the benchmark in DX9 actually gives higher scores than DX11 IIRC.

That's because there are new graphics features in DX11 unavailable in DX9 which reduce performance like HBAO+

If you use like-for-like settings and benchmark DX9 compared to DX11, you'll find when DX11 is nerfed to look like DX9, scores are higher in DX11 due to improvements in efficiency.

[Imoye]

There's a great deal wrong with this whole post but the only thing I'll comment on is that Nvidia has generally been thrashing AMD for years in video cards. If AMD were really that amazing, more people would be buying AMD but over the last decade or so that simply has not been the case. Marketing can't carry you for a decade in technology, if your product fundamentally sucks, people will eventually stop buying it. And yet for more than 10 years, Nvidia has nearly always held (sometimes significantly) higher market share than AMD. 10 years isn't caused by marketing and people need to stop pretending that it is.

Everything in my post is true, you don't really provide a solid arguement, you just write random stuff. AMD and Nvidia have both been pretty even when it comes to graphics cards, so yes, Nvidia has not been trashing AMD. More objectively you can simply sample reviews and see for yourself. As an enthusiast myself I want to buy what provides the best performance. When it comes to CPUs, Intel wins hands down. But that's really not the case with GPUs, and the fact that you say otherwise is odd as it is simply untrue. Apple's been outselling. Several Android manufacturers for years, does that make iPhones better? Definitely not.

You are so wrong, it pains me.

The 960 is not worth getting because of the 2GB memory limitation. 2GB is the bare minimum as of right now for 1080p gaming. If you want a card that'll last you for a while, then you need to get the 4GB version which costs more. Then you might as well get he 280X which is significantly faster and overclocks well.

Still remember when Nvidia 5xx users had to turn down settings in BF3 because they were maxing out on memory usage. Atm, you'd want more than 2GB if you're playing BF4/Hardline. Also those games support mantle which offers a significant performance boost for AMD cards.

Watchdogs, although it was poorly optimized for PC, also used more than 2GB. It's better to buy a card with more memory if play anything other than FFXIV. Unless you want to run into the chance of not being able to run high-res textures in the future. Also let's not forget Nvidia screwing customers with the GTX 970.

[erish]

gameworks normaly runs horrible on AMD. R

Please this is the sort of rubbish that needs to be stopped, Gameworks will boost nvidia cards but by the simple way it works it also works well for amd cards, although it might take abit longer for respective drivers to come out.

[ErzaScarlet77]

Im think of upgrading my 670 too and it was between 960 and 970

970 simply wins just because it has 4gb memory/vram or whatever instead of 2gb.

My 670 has 2gb and it caps out with gta5 and its pretty safe to assume games will start using more than 2gb from now on

[Hakuro89]

I'm also contemplating an upgrade to a better graphics card. Right now I have an AMD Radeon 7700, and right now on average my FPS sits around the mid 30's, and falls into the mid to upper 20's in Limsa (and that's nowhere near max desktop settings). I was thinking of getting a GTX 970, I already checked to make sure of system compatability and there's a quite few that look nice. Or would that be overkill?

[Judge_Xero]

When looking at video cards also make sure to consider the rest of your system.
To get the most out of a 970 you need a fairly strong Quad-Core.

Even a 960 would need a good Quad.

I did some testing a while back and even a GTX 550ti was bottlenecked by a Q6600 Overclocked to 3.2Ghz in FFXIV. It still played decent at high settings and could hit 45 FPS in empty areas looking at the sky, but in graphically intense areas it took a pretty big hit because the CPU could not keep up with the GPU, not to the point that it was unplayable by any means, but significant enough that there was no reason to have a more powerful GPU.

Probably a good rule of thumb is -

Quad Core CPU that uses DDR3 Ram will be a good pair for a GTX 960 (i3 with Hyperthreading, i5, Phenom II X4/X6)

For the GTX 970, you would want to pair it with any of the newer Quads, (i5/i7 Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell or Phenom II X4/X6 and/or AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver with a hefty Overclock (4.6Ghz)

Not saying that you can't use these with anything else, just saying that if you pair a GTX 980 with a Core2Duo at stocks speeds, you are paying for GPU performance that you will never see.

[Ooshima]

When looking at video cards also make sure to consider the rest of your system.
To get the most out of a 970 you need a fairly strong Quad-Core.

Even a 960 would need a good Quad.

I did some testing a while back and even a GTX 550ti was bottlenecked by a Q6600 Overclocked to 3.2Ghz in FFXIV. It still played decent at high settings and could hit 45 FPS in empty areas looking at the sky, but in graphically intense areas it took a pretty big hit because the CPU could not keep up with the GPU, not to the point that it was unplayable by any means, but significant enough that there was no reason to have a more powerful GPU.

Probably a good rule of thumb is -

Quad Core CPU that uses DDR3 Ram will be a good pair for a GTX 960 (i3 with Hyperthreading, i5, Phenom II X4/X6)

For the GTX 970, you would want to pair it with any of the newer Quads, (i5/i7 Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell or Phenom II X4/X6 and/or AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver with a hefty Overclock (4.6Ghz)

Not saying that you can't use these with anything else, just saying that if you pair a GTX 980 with a Core2Duo at stocks speeds, you are paying for GPU performance that you will never see.

Most of today's game still run good with an overclocked i7-2XXXK at around 4-4.5GHz, so older gen CPU isn't really a problem unless you got a crap and old one.

In any case speaking of GPU upgrades, most of the time single card upgrades over one generation isn't really worth it (ie. 780 to 980). Check out some of the SLI/Crossfire comparisons. For example, if you are on a single 290X it isn't really worth the upgrade to 390X, it would have been better for the buck if you buy another 290X (which is kinda dirt cheap right now) and Crossfire it.

For me I have a pair of GTX 970 in SLI which costs me US$125 above a single piece of GTX 980 but there is a lot of performance there. The performance is equal to the R9 295x2 but at a cost of less than half its price, lower temperature and power draw.

[Azures]

http://www.amazon.com/MSI-GTX-960-GA...ds=gtx+960+4gb

Problem solved