GTX 960 (2GB) [is the 4GB really better?] vs R9 380 (4GB) and also maybe R9 280x [price/performance value]

[DoctorRX]

I am looking to buy a new video card, mainly for MGSV and other games coming out. I am only Looking at cards in the $200 area and below as that is my budget. But obviously if the price/performance value is better on a cheaper card I would gladly go that route.

I've read numerous benchmarks, some also have conflicting info though. The two cards I am mainly considering are the 960 2GB and R9 380 4GB as they seem to represent the best two separations in price (960 wins) and performance (380 wins) for cards under $200 right now. I linked to the specific cards I am looking at.

As of now the best "deal" IMO is on the 960 which can be had for around $160-165 AR and CA tax and it comes with MGSV so another $20-30 value there if sold. This is for the 2GB version. I have read a lot of conflicting information both on here and in benchmark articles where the extra 2GB comes into question on the 4GB version. Being 128bit some people say that at 1080p (which is what I use) the 4GB 960 is not worth the extra money.

My other option is the R9 380. My only complaint with this card is the power consumption. I currently have a GTX 480 so I very much want to go to a cooler and less hungry card. This wouldn't be as big of an upgrade in this department as the 960. For the 380 I've heard to get the 4GB card as it is a 256bit card, although again I've heard some people state that because the card was designed for 2GB or 1080p it isn't worth the extra cost as well. As of now the best deal I can find is on the XFX R9 380 ($189 after CA tax) which has gotten good reviews and many see this is a clear upgrade over the 960 2GB or even 4GB version, just not in the power/temp area.

I was also told to maybe consider the 280x over either card as it is more powerful, but I have not done as much research into the 280x as the 960 and 380.

So at this point in time has the dust settled and is there a clear consensus concerning the GTX 960 2GB vs 4GB issue?

As of now which card would you prefer considering the price? GTX 960 for roughly $130-140 after selling MGSV or the R9 380 for $189.

For me I am leaning towards the 960 due to the lower power consumption and because it is considerably cheaper this would allow me save the money saved for a better future upgrade theoretically, or just buy more games. I am currently using a GTX 480 so the 960 2GB would already be a big upgrade.

 

[Mousemonkey]

I have both a 960 and a 380 both of the 2GB variety and they are about the same performance wise but the 380 uses a lot more power to achieve the same results, is the 4GB version any better and worth the price? I doubt it.

 

[AmigaWolf]

Yes go for the 4GB version of the Geforce GTX 960.

I also have a Geforce GTX 960 4GB and yes 4GB is better, because i seen more then a few games play better on the 4GB version then the 2GB version.


Does games run better on a 4GB Geforce GTX 960:

GTA 5

Assassin's Creed Unity

Far Cry 4

Battlefield: Hardline


http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2

And i know for sure there are more games, and coming.


Once the card runs out of memory frames will start swapping back and forth in the frame-buffer, resulting in a performance loss, and that is happening in some games.


Edit.

 

[BerettaOnTheNightStand]

I'm having the same problems you're having. I want a decent mid-range graphics card that doesn't break the bank, to play BF4, Arma 3, H1Z1, and games coming out in the next 2 or 3 years. I'm coming over from PS3 (I know, I'm a scrub) and I'll be playing on my single 60Hz 1080p Samsung TV. Anyway, I'm just as confused about the 2GB vs 4GB VRAM on the 380. I've heard a lot of conflicting hearsay, ex: game-debate.com says the 4GB R9 380 is just a gimmick to get people to pay $40 more, for the same performance. I've also heard on another site (forgot which one, I think it was PC Gaming.com or something) that 4GB on a 380 actually makes the card perform worse! Then there are the benchmarks which show the 4GB 380 getting 1 or 2 more FPS, than the 2GB version. I have yet to find anyone who can tell me why people think the 4GB 380 is a rip-off. I would really like to hear an expert explanation of all this. I mean, I'm not stupid. I know the 380 has 256bit memory bus, 185.6 GB/sec memory bandwidth, and an overall memory speed of 1450MHz. But I don't exactly know how that translates over to the framebuffer utilization. And I still don't know why people think 4GB isn't worth the extra $40?! I'm so confused

 

[AmigaWolf]

I'm having the same problems your having. I want a decent mid-range graphics card that doesn't break the bank, to play BF4, Arma 3, H1Z1, and games coming out in the next 2 or 3 years. I'm coming over from PS3 (I know, I'm a scrub) and I'll be playing on my single 60Hz 1080p Samsung TV. Anyway, I'm just as confused about the 2GB vs 4GB VRAM on the 380. I've heard a lot of conflicting hearsay, ex: game-debate.com says the 4GB R9 380 is just a gimmick to get people to pay $40 more, for the same performance. I've also heard on another site (forgot which one, I think it was PC Gaming.com or something) that 4GB on a 380 actually makes the card perform worse! Then there are the benchmarks which show the 4GB 380 getting 1 or 2 more FPS, than the 2GB version. I have yet to find anyone who can tell me why people think the 4GB 380 is a rip-off. I would really like to hear an expert explanation of all this. I mean, I'm not stupid. I know the 380 has 256bit memory bus, 182.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth, and an overall memory speed of 1425MHz. But I don't exactly know how that translates over to the framebuffer utilization. And I still don't know why people think 4GB isn't worth the extra $40?! I'm so confused

Yes 4GB on a R9 380 is better in some games, look at my links up, there you see that it also works on a Geforce GTX 960, so long your card is fast enough, it won't work with a GTX 750Ti or 950 or R7 260X and so on.

Once the card runs out of memory frames will start swapping back and forth in the frame-buffer, resulting in a performance loss.

But a GTX 960 and R9 380 is fast enough to see a difference in some games.

 

[DoctorRX]

I'm having the same problems your having. I want a decent mid-range graphics card that doesn't break the bank, to play BF4, Arma 3, H1Z1, and games coming out in the next 2 or 3 years. I'm coming over from PS3 (I know, I'm a scrub) and I'll be playing on my single 60Hz 1080p Samsung TV. Anyway, I'm just as confused about the 2GB vs 4GB VRAM on the 380. I've heard a lot of conflicting hearsay, ex: game-debate.com says the 4GB R9 380 is just a gimmick to get people to pay $40 more, for the same performance. I've also heard on another site (forgot which one, I think it was PC Gaming.com or something) that 4GB on a 380 actually makes the card perform worse! Then there are the benchmarks which show the 4GB 380 getting 1 or 2 more FPS, than the 2GB version. I have yet to find anyone who can tell me why people think the 4GB 380 is a rip-off. I would really like to hear an expert explanation of all this. I mean, I'm not stupid. I know the 380 has 256bit memory bus, 182.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth, and an overall memory speed of 1425MHz. But I don't exactly know how that translates over to the framebuffer utilization. And I still don't know why people think 4GB isn't worth the extra $40?! I'm so confused

Yes 4GB on a R9 380 is better in some games, look at my links up, there you see that it also works on a Geforce GTX 960, so long your card is fast enough, it won't work with a GTX 750Ti or 950 or R7 260X and so on.

Once the card runs out of memory frames will start swapping back and forth in the frame-buffer, resulting in a performance loss.

But a GTX 960 and R9 380 is fast enough to see a difference in some games.

Of the 960s out there is there a clear consensus card to get. I've been told to look at the Strix as that seems to run the coolest and is power efficient.

Coming from a GTX 480 I am definitely looking for something that runs cooler which is why I'd lean towards the 960 in that case.

But I also am thinking I should get a 4GB card both for future (some current) games at 1080p and also in case I get a higher res monitor.

Between the 4GB 380 and 960 which would you recommend? Some people say you won't notice much difference while others say the 380 by a longshot,.

Prices for the two cards are about the same, the 960 4GB is actually a bit more although it comes with MGSV.

The XFX R9 380 for $190 seems like the best value to me right now. It got a pretty good review from hardocp and it ran about as cold as a 960 in their tests which seems promising. Anyone have an opinion between the 4GB 960 and 4GB 380 if you take into account the prices and if the XFX 380 is any good?

 

[naturesninja]

Mostly, these types of cards are made for crossfire/sli or multiple monitor setups That's the sense of the too much RAM for the Card issue.

 

[BerettaOnTheNightStand]

Mostly, these types of cards are made for crossfire/sli or multiple monitor setups That's the sense of the too much RAM for the Card issue.

Well that makes the most sense out of everything I've heard in all my research thus far, thanks. As for which card to get. The 280x is super appealing if you can find it on sale, which I did. But the sale ends tomorrow and the money isn't in my paypal till the day after (damn I wish I had a credit card) It's a Club3D RoyalQueen on NCIX, if anyone's interested. It's on sale for $250 Canadian (that's $190 US) Anyway, I'm not sure of the brand. And being cheap as it is, the fans are probably loud and not made as well as Sapphire, MSI, Asus, etc... Oh well, you get what you pay for.

 

[naturesninja]

Yeah, I think the idea is to get midrange power now, and buy another later instead of replacing it with another single solution. I have two 6GB 280X's which on their own perform noticeably no better than the 3GB versions (maybe 1-3FPS) I have when comparing one card at a time. The 3GB Versions in CF scale at around 20-120% depending on game with probably 80% average(1.8X), whereas the 6gb versions scale at around 20-250% with probably 150% average (2.5X). CF/SLI have come a long way and only a few games out of my hundreds don't like it. Two 4GB 960's or 380's should topple both GTX 980's and R9 290's in most everything at any resolution.

I had some 2GB 7870's in CF that easily beat my other system at the time with a GTX780 @1080p, but not when using 3 1080p monitors. I tested some 4GB 270X's in CF that fixed that problem.

Moral to the story: Get a 4GB version now and another later, or get the 2GB version if you don't plan on doing that.

 

[DoctorRX]

Yeah, I think the idea is to get midrange power now, and buy another later instead of replacing it with another single solution. I have two 6GB 280X's which on their own perform noticeably no better than the 3GB versions (maybe 1-3FPS) I have when comparing one card at a time. The 3GB Versions in CF scale at around 20-120% depending on game with probably 80% average(1.8X), whereas the 6gb versions scale at around 20-250% with probably 150% average (2.5X). CF/SLI have come a long way and only a few games out of my hundreds don't like it. Two 4GB 960's or 380's should topple both GTX 980's and R9 290's in most everything at any resolution.

I had some 2GB 7870's in CF that easily beat my other system at the time with a GTX780 @1080p, but not when using 3 1080p monitors. I tested some 4GB 270X's in CF that fixed that problem.

Moral to the story: Get a 4GB version now and another later, or get the 2GB version if you don't plan on doing that.

I get the theory, but from what I have been reading a lot of people expect 4GB to be useful even at 1080p in future games as well. Some games now already use up >2 or even 3 GB or vram. I hear Mordor as being a hog in that department. Whether due to poor optimization or not I sort of expect games to start using more than 2GB at 1080p especially with big open world games coming out like MGSV and later Fallout. Throw in texture mods and I wonder if 2GB will be enough in those cases.

My other concern is if I get a higher res display in the future. 2GB might be limiting. I don't expect I'd ever want to go with a two card setup honestly though.

So far I am leaning toward the R9 380 4GB. It seems to fall nicely in between the:

960 2GB: Less powerful, lower temps, lower power consump, cheaper
R9 280x: More powerful, higher temps, around same price. Cheaper if you go refurbished.
R9 380: In between these two cards in terms of performance and temperature.

The 4GB version of the 960 is priced to where it makes me instantly go towards the R9 380. Even with MGSV included they are about the same price.

 

[naturesninja]

I have tested that exact thing with the 2GB 7870 VS 4GB 270X clocked the same and mod loaded Skyrim @1080p with MAYBE a 3-5 frame rate increase given to the 4GB. @ 1440 both cards were about the same. BF4 Offered no improvement @ either resolution. The GPU can't keep up with the available RAM, but two can. The only place I have found more RAM to be beneficial in single solution configuration @ this level of GPU was in 4k video/movies where I definitely noticed less stuttering, but not in games. There is more here, showing different resolutions in different games: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2#! or http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-380-2gb-4gb-review

 

[DoctorRX]

I have tested that exact thing with the 2GB 7870 VS 4GB 270X clocked the same and mod loaded Skyrim @1080p with MAYBE a 3-5 frame rate increase given to the 4GB. @ 1440 both cards were about the same. BF4 Offered no improvement @ either resolution. The GPU can't keep up with the available RAM, but two can. The only place I have found more RAM to be beneficial in single solution configuration @ this level of GPU was in 4k video/movies where I definitely noticed less stuttering, but not in games. There is more here, showing different resolutions in different games: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2#! or http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-380-2gb-4gb-review

That is essentially what I understand as well, but as your links show some games do show a noticeable difference at 1080p even and do use >2GB. I would assume that future games might also take advantage of the extra vram at 1080p which is why I am leaning toward a 4GB card. The price investment isn't that huge to go from 2GB to 4GB, but if it useless than of course it is useless.

What about the R9 380? Would it being 256bit provide more of an advantage to go from 2GB to 4GB at lower resolutions?

 

[AmigaWolf]

Yeah, I think the idea is to get midrange power now, and buy another later instead of replacing it with another single solution. I have two 6GB 280X's which on their own perform noticeably no better than the 3GB versions (maybe 1-3FPS) I have when comparing one card at a time. The 3GB Versions in CF scale at around 20-120% depending on game with probably 80% average(1.8X), whereas the 6gb versions scale at around 20-250% with probably 150% average (2.5X). CF/SLI have come a long way and only a few games out of my hundreds don't like it. Two 4GB 960's or 380's should topple both GTX 980's and R9 290's in most everything at any resolution.

I had some 2GB 7870's in CF that easily beat my other system at the time with a GTX780 @1080p, but not when using 3 1080p monitors. I tested some 4GB 270X's in CF that fixed that problem.

Moral to the story: Get a 4GB version now and another later, or get the 2GB version if you don't plan on doing that.

I get the theory, but from what I have been reading a lot of people expect 4GB to be useful even at 1080p in future games as well. Some games now already use up >2 or even 3 GB or vram. I hear Mordor as being a hog in that department. Whether due to poor optimization or not I sort of expect games to start using more than 2GB at 1080p especially with big open world games coming out like MGSV and later Fallout. Throw in texture mods and I wonder if 2GB will be enough in those cases.

My other concern is if I get a higher res display in the future. 2GB might be limiting. I don't expect I'd ever want to go with a two card setup honestly though.

So far I am leaning toward the R9 380 4GB. It seems to fall nicely in between the:

960 2GB: Less powerful, lower temps, lower power consump, cheaper
R9 280x: More powerful, higher temps, around same price. Cheaper if you go refurbished.
R9 380: In between these two cards in terms of performance and temperature.

The 4GB version of the 960 is priced to where it makes me instantly go towards the R9 380. Even with MGSV included they are about the same price.

A R9 380 4GB can use 190W in games, and a R9 280x can use 250W in games, and a Geforce GTX 960 uses only max 120w in games.

It is what you want, i went for a Geforce GTX 960 4GB because it uses a lot less energy then the R9 380 and R9 280x, and the extra memory also helps in some games, and of course future games.

 

[DoctorRX]

Yeah, I think the idea is to get midrange power now, and buy another later instead of replacing it with another single solution. I have two 6GB 280X's which on their own perform noticeably no better than the 3GB versions (maybe 1-3FPS) I have when comparing one card at a time. The 3GB Versions in CF scale at around 20-120% depending on game with probably 80% average(1.8X), whereas the 6gb versions scale at around 20-250% with probably 150% average (2.5X). CF/SLI have come a long way and only a few games out of my hundreds don't like it. Two 4GB 960's or 380's should topple both GTX 980's and R9 290's in most everything at any resolution.

I had some 2GB 7870's in CF that easily beat my other system at the time with a GTX780 @1080p, but not when using 3 1080p monitors. I tested some 4GB 270X's in CF that fixed that problem.

Moral to the story: Get a 4GB version now and another later, or get the 2GB version if you don't plan on doing that.

I get the theory, but from what I have been reading a lot of people expect 4GB to be useful even at 1080p in future games as well. Some games now already use up >2 or even 3 GB or vram. I hear Mordor as being a hog in that department. Whether due to poor optimization or not I sort of expect games to start using more than 2GB at 1080p especially with big open world games coming out like MGSV and later Fallout. Throw in texture mods and I wonder if 2GB will be enough in those cases.

My other concern is if I get a higher res display in the future. 2GB might be limiting. I don't expect I'd ever want to go with a two card setup honestly though.

So far I am leaning toward the R9 380 4GB. It seems to fall nicely in between the:

960 2GB: Less powerful, lower temps, lower power consump, cheaper
R9 280x: More powerful, higher temps, around same price. Cheaper if you go refurbished.
R9 380: In between these two cards in terms of performance and temperature.

The 4GB version of the 960 is priced to where it makes me instantly go towards the R9 380. Even with MGSV included they are about the same price.

A R9 380 4GB can use 190W in games, and a R9 280x can use 250W in games, and a Geforce GTX 960 uses only max 120w in games.

It is what you want, i went for a Geforce GTX 960 4GB because it uses a lot less energy then the R9 380 and R9 280x, and the extra memory also helps in some games, and of course future games.

Similar decision for me, but I think I am willing to sacrifice some of the power consumption of the 960 and gain some performance by going with the R9 380, but still less than the 280x. It's not always about raw performance. If I wasn't concerned at all I'd try and find a used R9 290 for around $200 instead of any of these, but again it's not just about performance.

 

[DoctorRX]

OK, an update to this. I think I've decided on just getting the 2GB 960. I only play at 1080 and talking with a friend who also recently bought a new card chose the 2GB 960 as it was cheaper.

Looking at benchmarks I've also seen what he was saying. The 380 4GB just doesn't show a large performance increase over the 2GB 960 in most games at 1080p. Given the price of the 380 being about $60 more than the 960 2GB I think I am leaning much more toward that card right now.

So far my favorite option is the ASUS Strix 960 2GB which can be had for about $160-170 after rebate and comes with MGSV.

Plus the power consumption and heat output will be a huge upgrade over my GTX 480.

 

[AmigaWolf]

OK, an update to this. I think I've decided on just getting the 2GB 960. I only play at 1080 and talking with a friend who also recently bought a new card chose the 2GB 960 as it was cheaper.

Looking at benchmarks I've also seen what he was saying. The 380 4GB just doesn't show a large performance increase over the 2GB 960 in most games at 1080p. Given the price of the 380 being about $60 more than the 960 2GB I think I am leaning much more toward that card right now.

So far my favorite option is the ASUS Strix 960 2GB which can be had for about $160-170 after rebate and comes with MGSV.

Plus the power consumption and heat output will be a huge upgrade over my GTX 480.

Sorry for the late answer.

OK good to see you made a choice, and the Geforce GTX 960 2GB is also a good choice and almost as fast as a R9 380, but uses less energy, and works perfect on 1080P.

Have a nice time playing games.