GTX 960M 2gb vs. GTX 860M 4gb

[prenses556]

Hey guys!

So I'm on the edge of getting myself a not-so-expensive gaming laptop and I'm really confused about these VRAM's... Setting aside everything else, I wonder whether these a 4gb 860M will make my laptop more future-proof than the 2gb 960M, because it seems like most of the new games require more than 2gb's of VRAM to run at ultra settings. It's not that I'm going to play much on ultra and I'm not planning to use a resolution higher than 1080p, but I really don't want my laptop to be obsolete 3 years from now because I won't be able to get myself a new pc or laptop in the near future (let's say 3-4 years).

In short, the problem is if it's worth losing the extra performance of 960M against the 4gb's of a 860M, and the future-proofness of such a choice. I don't expect any of these to perform extremely well but still, I don't want my new laptop to become like my old 2010 notebook that struggles while playing Skyrim on low-medium settings.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Get the 2GB 960M. Problem with 4GB of RAM is that both the 960M and the 860M will never reach ultra settings at 1080P on the most demanding games, so 2GB is enough for them.

 

[naturesninja]

Techy is correct, the 860m or 960m can't use that extra VRAM in gaming. I believe the intentions of having the higher VRAM are for those who wish to multitask with an external monitor connected. I can tell you from having plenty of GPU's with too much VRAM, that they are meant for multi monitor setups, or crossfire/sli. I have performed tests using the same gpu's with different memory sizes, and you will usually see a couple more frames, but that is likely due to the memory not having to refresh as often. Say on GTA V that can exceed 4GB of VRAM usage, my R9 280x with 3GB only falls one or two frames short of using my 6GB version. Think of the 960m like a GTX 750 in terms of performance if future proofing is a concern of yours. If you're really concerned about it though, you won't likely find a better deal than this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314849&cm_re=960m-_-34-314-849-_-Product or https://www.dealscube.com/index.php?module=listings&controller=listing&action=details&id=4408&gclid=CPCK2bPP8McCFQ86gQod0OYMGw

 

[andyouf]

Techy is correct, the 860m or 960m can't use that extra VRAM in gaming. I believe the intentions of having the higher VRAM are for those who wish to multitask with an external monitor connected. I can tell you from having plenty of GPU's with too much VRAM, that they are meant for multi monitor setups, or crossfire/sli. I have performed tests using the same gpu's with different memory sizes, and you will usually see a couple more frames, but that is likely due to the memory not having to refresh as often. Say on GTA V that can exceed 4GB of VRAM usage, my R9 280x with 3GB only falls one or two frames short of using my 6GB version. Think of the 960m like a GTX 750 in terms of performance if future proofing is a concern of yours. If you're really concerned about it though, you won't likely find a better deal than this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314849&cm_re=960m-_-34-314-849-_-Product or https://www.dealscube.com/index.php?module=listings&controller=listing&action=details&id=4408&gclid=CPCK2bPP8McCFQ86gQod0OYMGw

That Nitro is a good recommendation, is what I got and it is well-built (was my biggest concern). Although I wouldn't exactly push the 960 on people especially if they can save on the outgoing 860. The 960 is basically a rebadge of the 860. Still 640 pipelines. Difference barely noticeable. I have the 4gb 860m and it used pretty much all my vram playing GTAV, avg 45 fps, mix of high and ultra, I'm happy. I'm not stuck on having to constantly have 60fps.

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960M-vs-GeForce-GTX-860M

 

[andyouf]

Get the 2GB 960M. Problem with 4GB of RAM is that both the 960M and the 860M will never reach ultra settings at 1080P on the most demanding games, so 2GB is enough for them.

Does your card do ultra at 1080p at 60 fps?

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-860M-vs-EVGA-GeForce-GTX-750-Ti

people tend to fixate on 60 FPS... FPS is NOT what matters. The experience you perceive when playing the game IS what matters. Sometimes, 30 FPS is a very smooth game. Other times, its 45 FPS, and occasionally, its 60 FPS.

And no matter how you try, you are NOT likely to be able to get a persistent 60 FPS in any modern game. It seems there are always some events or locations in a game where the numbers drop. Sometimes you can tell by whats happening on your screen, but many times, you cannot.

I see so many people with awesome pc setups all hot and bothered by the fact that a benchmark says they are “ONLY GETTING 58 FPS!”... wow.. ONLY?

Come on now. If you turn off the FPS counter, how does the game play?

If I make adjustments to run GTA V at 60fps compared to turning graphical settings higher and getting between 42-50 fps here is what happens. I can tell the difference in quality from increasing graphics settings but can't see a performance difference from the decrease in fps.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Get the 2GB 960M. Problem with 4GB of RAM is that both the 960M and the 860M will never reach ultra settings at 1080P on the most demanding games, so 2GB is enough for them.

Does your card do ultra at 1080p at 60 fps?

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-860M-vs-EVGA-GeForce-GTX-750-Ti

people tend to fixate on 60 FPS... FPS is NOT what matters. The experience you perceive when playing the game IS what matters. Sometimes, 30 FPS is a very smooth game. Other times, its 45 FPS, and occasionally, its 60 FPS.

And no matter how you try, you are NOT likely to be able to get a persistent 60 FPS in any modern game. It seems there are always some events or locations in a game where the numbers drop. Sometimes you can tell by whats happening on your screen, but many times, you cannot.

I see so many people with awesome pc setups all hot and bothered by the fact that a benchmark says they are “ONLY GETTING 58 FPS!”... wow.. ONLY?

Come on now. If you turn off the FPS counter, how does the game play?

If I make adjustments to run GTA V at 60fps compared to turning graphical settings higher and getting between 42-50 fps here is what happens. I can tell the difference in quality from increasing graphics settings but can't see a performance difference from the decrease in fps.

Sorry I'm replying 1 month late, but hopefully you will still see this response.

My GTX 750 ti plays all my games at ultra 60fps average. Hawken, Tribes Ascend, Portal 2, World of Warships, War Thunder. Only time I get 35-45fps is when I'm playing tanks in War Thunder.

I agree that you don't necessarily need 60fps in every game, for example, in tank battles in War Thunder, all the tanks move so slowly that you don't need 60fps to make every hit and dodge count. However all FPS games and racing games will benefit from the extra frame rate, even if you going from a 60hz to a 75hz monitor.

 

[naturesninja]

Techy is correct, the 860m or 960m can't use that extra VRAM in gaming. I believe the intentions of having the higher VRAM are for those who wish to multitask with an external monitor connected. I can tell you from having plenty of GPU's with too much VRAM, that they are meant for multi monitor setups, or crossfire/sli. I have performed tests using the same gpu's with different memory sizes, and you will usually see a couple more frames, but that is likely due to the memory not having to refresh as often. Say on GTA V that can exceed 4GB of VRAM usage, my R9 280x with 3GB only falls one or two frames short of using my 6GB version. Think of the 960m like a GTX 750 in terms of performance if future proofing is a concern of yours. If you're really concerned about it though, you won't likely find a better deal than this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834314849&cm_re=960m-_-34-314-849-_-Product or https://www.dealscube.com/index.php?module=listings&controller=listing&action=details&id=4408&gclid=CPCK2bPP8McCFQ86gQod0OYMGw

That Nitro is a good recommendation, is what I got and it is well-built (was my biggest concern). Although I wouldn't exactly push the 960 on people especially if they can save on the outgoing 860. The 960 is basically a rebadge of the 860. Still 640 pipelines. Difference barely noticeable. I have the 4gb 860m and it used pretty much all my vram playing GTAV, avg 45 fps, mix of high and ultra, I'm happy. I'm not stuck on having to constantly have 60fps.

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960M-vs-GeForce-GTX-860M

There are no current deals I am aware of where any 860m is cheaper than the Nitro I posted ($900 at the time) Hence why I posted it. Actually most 860m laptops are still in the same price range as 960m laptops or even higher. Your VRAM may be filling up but your GPU isn't using it all before it refreshes, hate to break it to you.

 

[andyouf]

You are right...the 860m models are actually more expensive than the 960's, just checked amazon.

 

[andyouf]

"Does your card do ultra at 1080p at 60 fps?"

No, not in all games, somehow project cars (which I spent 80% of my time on) runs amazingly well at 60 on ultra, I don't know how. But I'm happy at 1080 in most games with a mix of high and ultra averaging 45. I turn down stuff to get it to 60 and there is just no difference that I can perceive in most games I play. But it is game by game. I couldn't see spending an extra 1k on a laptop with a 980m. At all. Rather put that toward another one in 2-3 years.