GTX960 4G 128bit or R9 270 2G 256bit???

[Erik Sorensen]

Tis' better to have more VRAM or higher mem bus? that is the question.

I have currently an R9 270 with 2G and 256bitmem, but the artifacts, though slighlty infrequent, are frequent enough to make gameplay impossible. It could be a defective card and simply be a matter of replacing, but I could also afford the GTX 960 with 4G and 128 bit mem at this time. so is the trade off worth it? which is better?

 

[photonboy]

People seem to be really confused on this memory bandwidth which is a NON-ISSUE.

Points:
1) The GTX900 series uses a compression algorithm which doesn't need as much memory bandwidth.

2) If the memory wasn't being accessed at full speed then the GPU wouldn't be able to operate at 100% as it would be left waiting.

3) *There's no relationship between memory bandwidth and the AMOUNT of memory. A GPU only talks to a small portion of memory at a time, not all of it. Modern games are starting to use more memory. You won't see much benefit right now but probably in the near future.

*In Watch Dogs (game quality aside) the reason for the stutter was because the VRAM would slowly fill up as you drove around. It didn't take very long and then more than 2GB was used which then caused severe stutter if you only had 2GB as it started swapping the currently unused data back to SYSTEM memory.

So at the time of launch a GTX960 4GB would have ran Watch Dogs quite smoothly whereas a GTX960 2GB would not.

**Why was Watch Dogs coded like this? Because it was designed for the new CONSOLES first and had over 5GB (shared) allowable so it could use more than 3GB at times easily for the video content. When they ported back to PC they discovered it was very difficult to manage the swapping of the video memory to keep usage low.

Other:
These cards aren't really comparable as the GTX960 is more expensive, though it is a much better card. Do I think the 4GB will be of benefit in the near future? Yes. Yes, I do. Unless you think game developers have learned their lesson and from now on out we will always get well optimized PC versions of games designed to run on the new consoles...

*Frankly, ignore things like "memory bandwidth"; I know how it works and simply don't care because all that matters in terms of performance are BENCHMARKS. If I get good performance and the card is using jelly beans instead of electrons who cares?

 

[Erik Sorensen]

People seem to be really confused on this memory bandwidth which is a NON-ISSUE.

Points:
1) The GTX900 series uses a compression algorithm which doesn't need as much memory bandwidth.

2) If the memory wasn't being accessed at full speed then the GPU wouldn't be able to operate at 100% as it would be left waiting.

3) *There's no relationship between memory bandwidth and the AMOUNT of memory. A GPU only talks to a small portion of memory at a time, not all of it. Modern games are starting to use more memory. You won't see much benefit right now but probably in the near future.

*In Watch Dogs (game quality aside) the reason for the stutter was because the VRAM would slowly fill up as you drove around. It didn't take very long and then more than 2GB was used which then caused severe stutter if you only had 2GB as it started swapping the currently unused data back to SYSTEM memory.

So at the time of launch a GTX960 4GB would have ran Watch Dogs quite smoothly whereas a GTX960 2GB would not.

**Why was Watch Dogs coded like this? Because it was designed for the new CONSOLES first and had over 5GB (shared) allowable so it could use more than 3GB at times easily for the video content. When they ported back to PC they discovered it was very difficult to manage the swapping of the video memory to keep usage low.

Other:
These cards aren't really comparable as the GTX960 is more expensive, though it is a much better card. Do I think the 4GB will be of benefit in the near future? Yes. Yes, I do. Unless you think game developers have learned their lesson and from now on out we will always get well optimized PC versions of games designed to run on the new consoles...

*Frankly, ignore things like "memory bandwidth"; I know how it works and simply don't care because all that matters in terms of performance are BENCHMARKS. If I get good performance and the card is using jelly beans instead of electrons who cares?

so going from the R9 270 to the GTX 960 will definitely be a step up? despite the decrease in bandwidth? and the extra vram is more just futureproofing???

I just want to be sure. Many thanks!

 

[Supermuncher85]

Yes it is an upgrade, but probably not as big as you are hoping. The 270 is just behind the 280 which is ~ 960. If you want a true upgrade look at r9 290 or 970. Also AMD is releasing new cards next week. I'd wait.

 

[Jimyhf2]

I had to return my GTX 960 4G as performance was kind of disappointing. This card shouldn't cost more than $150 with 128bit memory and 4GB should come standard in $200 price range. Save some money and get R9 Fury Nano.

 

[RoadWarrior57]

I use an R9 270X and it works perfectly and always has. The GTX 960 is a better card than the 270X but not by a huge amount. I would look at an R9 300 and these are about the same price as the GTX 960. I believe they are a slightly better buy.

 

[kwa-e]

The 960 grossly outperforms the 270, It's more of an R9 280 competitor than anything.

 

[stavrosmast]

Better get the 960 nvidia architecture is based on core power (detrrmined by chipset) 960 is very bettrr than the 270 it has better driver supoort, it runs cooler and more quiet so it will last more years