maxalge :
RCFProd :
I think you mean the GTX 960 2GB as those are 200-210 dollars.
I also hope you mean the GTX 960 2GB because the 4GB version is a waste of money.
The R9 280X 3GB has more effective VRAM than the GTX 960 2GB/4GB.
The GTX 960 4GB WILL NEVER SURPASS THE R9 280X IN PERFORMANCE. THIS IS NONSENSE.
You fell for Nvidia's 4GB VRAM on a 128-bit memory bus marketing trick.
+1
@photonboy value??? the 4gb version is a pure ripoff, especially when you can get a 290 for the same price. XD
Update:
Good point about the R9-290; frankly hadn't realized prices were so low. Jump to my comment below this one if you want.
The REST of this tries to clear up some points, however I was only comparing to the R9-280X at the time. I'm not going to change it now so just added the R9-290 comment after looking into the prices.
So skip over any "value" parts in this comment since I can't recommend an R9-280X either with an R9-290 for the same price (weird).
Draw whatever conclusions you want. I provided actual links with frame rates and pricing.
The GTX960 4GB card I linked is $210USD and the R9-280X was $242USD. The price difference was 15%. The frame rate difference was 15%.
As discussed above the frame rate difference (on average) shrinks with weaker CPU's, and the NVidia GPU supports MFAA for some games which boosts the frame rate in those titles.
If you're going to call me on this at least provide your own data to prove your point.
1. 4GB is pointless?
I'd have said the same a few years ago, and it is currently now, however that's likely to change for some games in the near future due to the new consoles. There's a misunderstanding that the GPU and VRAM amount scale directly and more VRAM makes no sense.
That's not quite true. The new console games have more than 2GB available for video memory easily. When that comes to PC it means that as you move around the world this data starts to fill up your video memory. On a 4GB card let's say this fills up to 3.5GB.
A game never access ALL of the framebuffer at one time. It accesses select bits of data. If the texture it's looking for isn't in video memory then everything slows down when it looks to the System Memory or (gasp) HDD/SSD.
*So on console they don't worry about this and simply fill up the video data. This is also why Watch Dogs started to stutter on PC cards with 3GB or less video memory. It would start smooth, then you'd run out of space.
**Can't they "swap" data around to avoid this issue? Sure, but the game would have to be "smart" enough to do this. Again, on console they have enough space so don't have to worry about it. If they have say 3.5GB of video data but you only have a 2GB framebuffer then the game has to be constantly swapping unused data back to System memory so that the GPU is never asked to process something not presently in video.
Can you see how COMPLICATED this would be to do for many games? How does it predict what data to swap? Not to mention this also creates additional overhead to the game.
2) 128-bit bus:
Aside from the fact that it's actually sufficient due to compression, people seem to keep thinking that you need MORE BANDWIDTH with more memory. It doesn't work that way at all.
The GPU can't access all of the memory at the same time. It only accesses a very small amount. It's going to access the data at EXACTLY the same speed with 2GB as it does with 4GB. You don't hear about the CPU being bottlenecked in video editing because you're using 64GB instead of 4GB do you? It's exactly the same thing.
Also, if there was a major BANDWIDTH issue the GPU would be enable to reach 100% usage. The memory simply needs to be fast enough so that the GPU isn't waiting to get its data. That's the reason the XBOX ONE had to use an eSRAM buffer; the DDR3 memory wasn't fast enough so the data gets moved into the buffer for the GPU to access.
Summary:
- don't confuse "value" with "performance"; I'm mainly referring to the Price-to-FPS ratio averaged over 20 games with a strong Intel CPU to minimize GPU bottleneck
- the GTX960 4GB might make sense in the near future (vs 2GB).
- the GTX960 4GB is a better VALUE though again the extend varies on the usage and setup. The numbers are there if you don't see it that way then I'm not going to argue any more.
- the R9-280X i linked does perform better, though again it depends on the CPU and game used.
- again on CPU, there's a big article somewhere showing how the AMD drivers are reducing the frame rate (depending on the combination of CPU/GPU and the game.)
- as for bandwidth, 4GB vs 2GB in detail that's explained above. If you don't agree, or can't follow my explanation then that's fine too.
- finally, there's also value in the FEATURE differences and that depends on the individual user. If you don't compare about potentially a SILENT experience in light usage then that feature's not important. If you DO care then that's a solid reason to go for the GTX960.
Anyway, this was fun for me and if someone else learned something then great. Thanks to everyone for thus far attempting to keep things civil.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram