Best Graphics Cards For The Money: October 2014 (Archive)

[cdrkf]

I just play on one screen. What do you mean by:GPU runs out of power before the 2GB VRAM becomes an issue?

I mean that the 960 doesn't have enough processing power to utilize 4GB VRAM in most situations. Different aspects of rendering video games tax different parts of the GPU. You have processing power, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity. Using a higher detail setting in nearly every aspect will require more processing. Meanwhile the biggest hits to VRAM are hi-res textures and high AA settings. So, in order to max out the 4GB VRAM, you'd need to run a game with ultra-res textures, high anisotropic filtering, high AA settings, and most likely at a higher than 1920x1080 resolution. However, all those things tax the processing power as well. So the settings required to use the 4GB VRAM would reduce the framerates to unplayable levels.

Now drop that to 2GB VRAM and you hit a better balance. Right around the time the VRAM is taxed to its limits, the processing power is too. If you're only playing at 1280x1080 ( you sure it's not 1280x1024? ) a normal 2GB 960 is more than enough.

Agreed, a 960 would be a decent upgrade from a 660, however you would be better spending your money on a faster GPU than a slower one with more memory.

So for example, Radeon R9 285, 280X and 290 cards, as well as Geforce GTX 770, 780 / ti, 970 and 980 cards are all faster than the 960, and I think any of those cards would be a better bet if you can get for similar money than spending extra to get the 960 with 4gb of vram.

 

[Sakkura]

why does toms hardware suggest reference cards over non reference? I always read that non reference cards perform cooler and faster.

Non-reference coolers dump most of the heated air inside the case, while reference coolers usually exhaust out the back of the case.

But dumping the heated air inside the case is not a problem if you have decent airflow.

 

[RedJaron]

Agreed, a 960 would be a decent upgrade from a 660, however you would be better spending your money on a faster GPU than a slower one with more memory.

So for example, Radeon R9 285, 280X and 290 cards, as well as Geforce GTX 770, 780 / ti, 970 and 980 cards are all faster than the 960, and I think any of those cards would be a better bet if you can get for similar money than spending extra to get the 960 with 4gb of vram.

It's like you only skimmed the original question and the 960 review instead of fully reading them both. At 1080p, the 960 beats the 285 most the time, and ties the 770 as many times as loses to it. Why spend the extra money on either of those cards when the performance gain is minimal?

Now, the original question was which 960 version would be the better upgrade to his 660 on a 1280x1080 screen. At that resolution, anything above a 280 or 960 would be absolute overkill. Also, he may have a reference 660 which only requires one 6-pin PCIe cable instead of the 660 Ti which requires two. If his PSU only has one PCIe cable, then everything you've mentioned is out of the question unless he also upgrades his PSU.

If he has the PSU to support it, I'd say the 280X would be a great upgrade if he wants to upgrade his monitor down the road, but the 960 is hardly a bad card on its own.

 

[wquach]

That GTX 690 placement seems outdated. It trails the 980 on all resolutions: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/29.html
And in most games:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1184?vs=1351

It would probably be best at one tier below its current spot (alongside the 980)

 

[cdrkf]

Agreed, a 960 would be a decent upgrade from a 660, however you would be better spending your money on a faster GPU than a slower one with more memory.

So for example, Radeon R9 285, 280X and 290 cards, as well as Geforce GTX 770, 780 / ti, 970 and 980 cards are all faster than the 960, and I think any of those cards would be a better bet if you can get for similar money than spending extra to get the 960 with 4gb of vram.

It's like you only skimmed the original question and the 960 review instead of fully reading them both. At 1080p, the 960 beats the 285 most the time, and ties the 770 as many times as loses to it. Why spend the extra money on either of those cards when the performance gain is minimal?

Now, the original question was which 960 version would be the better upgrade to his 660 on a 1280x1080 screen. At that resolution, anything above a 280 or 960 would be absolute overkill. Also, he may have a reference 660 which only requires one 6-pin PCIe cable instead of the 660 Ti which requires two. If his PSU only has one PCIe cable, then everything you've mentioned is out of the question unless he also upgrades his PSU.

If he has the PSU to support it, I'd say the 280X would be a great upgrade if he wants to upgrade his monitor down the road, but the 960 is hardly a bad card on its own.

Well I read the screen resolution- to be honest I would have thought his current 660 would be fine at that. I agree at *low resolutions* the 960 is very quick, however any of those cards are as you say pretty overkill. My position has always been to buy the *best card I can get with my budget* as it will last longer overall (in all likelihood he'll upgrade his screen sooner or later). The thing is, at that resolution, I cant see how he could loose out going for a 280 or 285 if it costs the same- yes the 960 might be a few fps quicker on his current screen but all those cards are going to be pushing frame rates way over the refresh rate, in which case looking at the potential longevity of the cards is more sensible. I agree the PSU could be a problem, although I think many gamers tend to overestimate the PSU requirements- a mid range supply with a decent amperage on a single rail will drive pretty much any single GPU card if your not going to overclock.

My point is I really can't see *any situation* at the current price points where buying a GTX 960 is a good idea. Especially a 4gb version (which I'm assuming has a fairly hefty price premium). I mean if your staunchly in the nVidia camp then there are plenty of GTX 7XX parts still around that offer a much more balanced product. At that price point I also think the AMD cards on offer are a more sensible choice. As a side note I really don't like manufacturers sticking masses of vram with weak GPUs like this- there were a number of Radeon 270X cards with 4gb of ram and that was equally pointless given the power of that GPU.

+1 on the the 280X though. Great card that should last a while (even if it lacks some of the extras of the newer GCN gpu's).

 

[RedJaron]

Well I read the screen resolution- to be honest I would have thought his current 660 would be fine at that. I agree at *low resolutions* the 960 is very quick, however any of those cards are as you say pretty overkill

Agreed. A 660 should be sufficient, but then again it might be just starting to lag in a few new games, I don't know. If someone's asking for an upgrade, I'd imagine there's a reason.

My position has always been to buy the *best card I can get with my budget* as it will last longer overall (in all likelihood he'll upgrade his screen sooner or later). The thing is, at that resolution, I cant see how he could loose out going for a 280 or 285 if it costs the same- yes the 960 might be a few fps quicker on his current screen but all those cards are going to be pushing frame rates way over the refresh rate, in which case looking at the potential longevity of the cards is more sensible.

I usually "bite the bullet" and spend a little extra as well, but that's only the case if money is the only concern. There may be other factors as well. Case heat and airflow for one. The 660 was mediocre at heat and power consumption, but the 280 and above are even worse.

I agree the PSU could be a problem, although I think many gamers tend to overestimate the PSU requirements- a mid range supply with a decent amperage on a single rail will drive pretty much any single GPU card if your not going to overclock.

Agreed, a lot of people go nuts on wattage and capacity they'll never need or use. However, wattage is meaningless if you don't have the cables to hook up components. Molex adapter cables can work in a pinch if you know what you're doing. But if you don't know how many rails you have or what cables feed off which one, you run the risk of over-drawing a rail.

My point is I really can't see *any situation* at the current price points where buying a GTX 960 is a good idea. Especially a 4gb version (which I'm assuming has a fairly hefty price premium).

I've already talked about how I think a 4GB version of a 960 is a bad buy. And you ought to be careful with blanket statements because it only takes one or two corner cases to punch a hole in them. Say you're working with a limited PSU, say a lower-wattage OEM model from a Dell or HP system. Running a 280 or 280X isn't an option, but the 960 will be just fine. Say you've got a smaller case where heat is a worry. Again, the 960 would be your best option for that price/performance bracket. Or perhaps you're someone who wants some gaming prowess, but values a quiet PC. Once more, the 960 would be a smart choice. Those are just three cases where the 960 makes sense.

I'll say it again. If you're on a single 1080 display and aren't switching to a bigger resolution in the future, then the 960 provides decent performance for the money.

I mean if your staunchly in the nVidia camp then there are plenty of GTX 7XX parts still around that offer a much more balanced product. At that price point I also think the AMD cards on offer are a more sensible choice.

Check the review article again. Focus on the 1080 benchmarks. Note that the 760 is always behind the 960 and quite a few times the 770 is maybe half a step ahead. How much more will you spend on the 770 than the 960? And how little better performance will you get out of it? I don't think it's smart money.

As a side note I really don't like manufacturers sticking masses of vram with weak GPUs like this- there were a number of Radeon 270X cards with 4gb of ram and that was equally pointless given the power of that GPU.

I'm not a fan of it either, but if people keep buying those products, there's no reason mfrs will stop making them. Many consumers are ill-informed and sellers will take advantage of it. Others just want bragging rights, whether or not their hardware warrants it.

And while still a little out of balance, that 270X has the GPU and memory pipe to utilize that 4GB better than a 960 can.

 

[Jotto1448]

I have read all the comments and the article in it's entirety. I understand very little of it =P. Is the GTX 980 a good card?

 

[allawash]

Has anybody else noticed the high number of negative reviews of cards using the 260x chipset? Has there been any official word on why that is? I was initially going to get one, but after seeing so many reviews pertaining to black screens and crashes, it kind of scared me off. Seems to go back since it was introduced, so I'm kind of surprised to see no mention of it in the article.

 

[Sakkura]

Has anybody else noticed the high number of negative reviews of cards using the 260x chipset? Has there been any official word on why that is? I was initially going to get one, but after seeing so many reviews pertaining to black screens and crashes, it kind of scared me off. Seems to go back since it was introduced, so I'm kind of surprised to see no mention of it in the article.

User reviews are useless. Also, budget graphics cards tend to go into budget systems which may more often have low-end power supplies that cause problems. Those problems can then be misattributed to the graphics card.

 

[cdrkf]

I have read all the comments and the article in it's entirety. I understand very little of it =P. Is the GTX 980 a good card?

The GTX 980 is one of the best single GPU card you can buy currently, and as well as being fast it's also pretty efficient (drawing less power than the last gen flagship cards whilst also being faster).

So in short: Yes 😛

The only downside to it, is it's rather expensive. The GTX 970 represents much better value for money (despite some issues with it's memory config by all accounts it's usually doesn't cause any real life problems in games).

If power isn't a concern a Radeon R9 290 or 290X are also better value for money than the 980, and offer similar price / performance to the 970.

 

[cdrkf]

Has anybody else noticed the high number of negative reviews of cards using the 260x chipset? Has there been any official word on why that is? I was initially going to get one, but after seeing so many reviews pertaining to black screens and crashes, it kind of scared me off. Seems to go back since it was introduced, so I'm kind of surprised to see no mention of it in the article.

You'd be better getting a R9 270 than the 260x, as they're usually priced pretty close together. I've also not noticed any bad reports about 270's really (installed one for a friend last year and he's happy with it).

 

[RedJaron]

User reviews are useless. Also, budget graphics cards tend to go into budget systems which may more often have low-end power supplies that cause problems. Those problems can then be misattributed to the graphics card.

I don't know that I'd call them useless, but they definitely need to be taken with a couple large grains of salt. A consumer is more likely to leave a bad review if something goes wrong than a good review if the product acts as expected, so the numbers can definitely be skewed. I mean, when was the last time you left a neutral or positive review for a product that didn't blow your socks off, but just did its job ( meaning to everyone in general, not just to Sakkura. ) However if I see a lot of negative reviews talking about the exact same thing, then I might be a little cautious.

Good point on power supplies, though.