EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SuperSuperClocked Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

Derek Furst

Reputable
Mar 19, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
Worth every penny except that it is slower and more expensive than the R9 280.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3790264
intel hd4000 is better than a gtx 980. See, i can say things that aren't true as well. Not only is the 960 the SAME price on newegg, it comes with the witcher 3 (a 60 dollar game i was going to buy already) and on passmark, the r9 280 only scored like a 4100 something while the 960 scores 5980.
 

caj

Honorable
Jun 27, 2013
1,328
0
11,660
147
the 280 will finish this hands down. also the 128 bit highly cripples the possbility of sli. it would have been considered mayb it it had a bandwith of 256bit.


www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Radeon-PCI-Express-Graphics-11230-00-20G/dp/B00IZXOW80/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426752176&sr=8-1&keywords=280

I've removed the other two copies of this post - SS
 
Really sad to see Nvidia put 2GB on and such a small bus :"(

If 3GB I would have been pretty impressed but that is not the case..

660 is 2GB, 760 is 2GB, 960 is 2GB and so was the 860M if that counts.. So Nvidia, maybe time for a change so that AMD doesn't slap you in the mid-ranged GPU area like this did in the 7** series. Most of the consumers will want to buy those $180-$250 cards and when they come to us and ask us what to get we would have obviously said the 270-280x (depending on their budget) Nothing that Nvidia had to offer could come close because their prices were so high. I have never suggested that anyone should buy a 760. But now the 960 is an option but due to that extra VRAM the 280 has, I will still suggest it.
 

Nuckles_56

Admirable
May 25, 2014
2,274
0
6,960
472
Your test system is interesting with the 3 gtx 980's used for testing :p

Asus Matrix Platinum GeForce GTX 980
1241MHz GPU, 4GB GDDR5 at 1753MHz (7009MT/s)

Zotac GeForce GTX 980 AMP! Omega Edition
1203MHz GPU, 4GB GDDR5 at 1762MHz (7048MT/s)

Reference GeForce GTX 980
1126MHz GPU, 2GB GDDR5 at 1750MHz (7000MT/s)
 

sonny1973n10

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2011
5
0
18,510
0
"Worth every penny"

Yeah right! Who would spend $210 for a 128-bit?
The 384-bit R9 280 is cheaper, performs better and has more room for OCing.
 

Memnarchon

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2011
1,351
0
19,660
106

While I disagree that R9 280 is faster, since the Tom's Hardware Index 1080p, shows GTX960 as faster and the factory models even more faster (to HD7970 and GTX680 levels), you said something that it should be sticky to every PC hardware site:

Noone should use these incredible misleading sites like Passmark (for CPUs or GPUs), GPUBoss and CPUBoss.
Especially for gaming. I remember Passmark showing GTX670 faster than GTX690...
 

ykki

Honorable
Sep 28, 2013
1,691
0
12,460
296


Not to mention sometimes the pricing of the 960's breathe down the better 280x's.
 

jbc029

Honorable
Jun 18, 2012
75
0
10,660
12

While I disagree that R9 280 is faster, since the Tom's Hardware Index 1080p, shows GTX960 as faster and the factory models even more faster (to HD7970 and GTX680 levels), you said something that it should be sticky to every PC hardware site:

Noone should use these incredible misleading sites like Passmark (for CPUs or GPUs), GPUBoss and CPUBoss.
Especially for gaming. I remember Passmark showing GTX670 faster than GTX690...
And you should also realize that the particular part that you're referencing in the Hardware Index was the overall performance of the 7970 reference card with no overclock at all *when it was released 3 years ago*. It does not reflect 7970 performance today, after years of driver optimizations. This particularly high overclock on a 960 can *almost* perform like a 280X that costs $30 more and has no overclock at all.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26

While I disagree that R9 280 is faster, since the Tom's Hardware Index 1080p, shows GTX960 as faster and the factory models even more faster (to HD7970 and GTX680 levels), you said something that it should be sticky to every PC hardware site:

Noone should use these incredible misleading sites like Passmark (for CPUs or GPUs), GPUBoss and CPUBoss.
Especially for gaming. I remember Passmark showing GTX670 faster than GTX690...
You do realise that that is an index not a direct benchmark
 

Khaosix

Reputable
Mar 19, 2015
3
0
4,510
0
Attention all 960 Haters. Toss all of the specs aside. Look at real benchmarks and tell me how the 960 is not better than the 280? REAL GAME BENCHMARKS. Not synthetic benchmarks that are meant to stress the video card to the max limit. And how are people saying that the 960 is garbage in SLI because of the 128bit? Go check some 960 SLI($420) benchmarks and watch it outperform the GTX 980($550). And how about power consumption? Go read up on some 280 power consumption and tell me if you can drop the 280 into a machine without considering a PSU upgrade. In the end, this comment will be ignored and people will persist spouting garbage. haters gonna hate.
 

Khaosix

Reputable
Mar 19, 2015
3
0
4,510
0
Where are the REAL GAME BENCHMARKS in this review?? will have to wait for Anantech to do the real indepth review as always :p
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_960_SSC_ACX_Cooler/
 

Justin C

Honorable
Jul 27, 2013
8
0
10,510
0
All you 128-bit bus morons...crawl out from under the AMD rock you've been living under. The GeForce 980, with a 256-bit bus will beat an AMD 290X, with a 512-bit bus, in just about any game under the sun.

Efficient use of the bus is more important than "bits"!
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26


1st of all you have no idea what those bits mean, and what nvidia does to achive what it does trough compression, simply put Nvidia couldn`t handle AMD`s bus width so they went for compression of the image to get away with it otherwise their cards would be too expensive witha 512 bit bus.
As for 980 is almost double the price vs a 290 in my country which makes it a stupid buy since the card is not 2 times faster , 970 is amazing for a 3.5 GB card though
 

Justin C

Honorable
Jul 27, 2013
8
0
10,510
0


1st of all you have no idea what those bits mean, and what nvidia does to achive what it does trough compression, simply put Nvidia couldn`t handle AMD`s bus width so they went for compression of the image to get away with it otherwise their cards would be too expensive witha 512 bit bus.
As for 980 is almost double the price vs a 290 in my country which makes it a stupid buy since the card is not 2 times faster , 970 is amazing for a 3.5 GB card though
You are aware AMD did the exact same thing with Tonga (R9 285), right?

Yes, I know what those bits mean, but you clearly have a misunderstanding of the following concept:
Efficient use of the bus is far more important than the bus width and it's theoretical throughput.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS