MSI GPU vs EVGA GPU

[Fez___]

Just wondering what the real different between these two cards is. Apart from price.

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-gtx960gaming4g

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-video-card-04gp41962kr?ref=ppxe

I was originally going to choose the MSI to fit my colour scheme but I can always change the colour on the EVGA.

 

[Rogue Leader]

The EVGA has a single fan and is a short version, consequentially the clocks are lower and it won't handle overclocking much if at all.

 

[CBender]

The msi would perform better, have better noise output and of course better temperatures. Cards with one fan either under perform or make a lot of noise since the fan has to spin at much higher rpm. The msi 4g series has been maybe the best series of cards for the 9xx nvidia cards.

 

[SoNic67]

The GTX 960 is very low power chip. My EVGA card is clocked at 1127MHz (Boost at 1178MHz) and temperature is below 60C, with one fan only. The fan doesn't even go to max during gaming, I don't hear it. Actually when I type this the fan is at 0%, GPU temperature is 38C because the power consumption is at 5.4% TDP.

Some companies added two fans just to make people think like above and buy based on that flawed process. The clocks of the two cards above are 1.22GHz and 1.24GHz, nothing to justify two fans.

Now, MSI is known to aggressively OC some their cards (not the above case). But also that leads to a higher failure rate in the future...

 

[Rogue Leader]

The GTX 960 is very low power chip. My EVGA card is clocked at 1127MHz (Boost at 1178MHz) and temperature is below 60C, with one fan only. The fan doesn't even go to max during gaming, I don't hear it. Actually when I type this the fan is at 0%, GPU temperature is 38C because the power consumption is at 5.4% TDP.

Some companies added two fans just to make people think like above and buy based on that flawed process. The clocks of the two cards above are 1.22GHz and 1.24GHz, nothing to justify two fans.

Now, MSI is known to aggressively OC some their cards (not the above case). But also that leads to a higher failure rate in the future...

While MSI has a higher failure rate than EVGA, the card also runs at nearly 300 mhz more under OC and boost than the EVGA. So it does need extra cooling. I will agree though a non OC card does not need that much cooling at all.

 

[Dulith1118]

while others say that ill say there not much difference when it comes to the same model..
Try a r9 390 will give u more fps in some games over the 960

 

[Rogue Leader]

while others say that ill say there not much difference when it comes to the same model..
Try a r9 390 will give u more fps in some games over the 960

The R9 390 will blow a way a 960 in any game, its also over $100 more, so kind of irrelevant here.

If you were to say R9 380 then yes it is faster than the 960 for around the same price, however it requires a better PSU as it needs more power.

 

[SoNic67]

My EVGA runs at 77C in games with one fan at 41% speed. There is no need for other fans, and the number of fans not a valid recommendation for the GTX960 cards. That's all I say.
As for GTX 960 being "blown away" by R9 390 - exaggerations again. What that means EXACTLY?
If OP has just a 1920x1080 monitor, that can display max 60Hz, how can be any other card be more relevant? Reviews on 4K monitors or on 144Hz ones are one thing, but reality might be different.

 

[Rogue Leader]

My EVGA runs at 77C in games with one fan at 41% speed. There is no need for other fans, and the number of fans not a valid recommendation for the GTX960 cards. That's all I say.
As for GTX 960 being "blown away" by R9 390 - exaggerations again. What that means EXACTLY?
If OP has just a 1920x1080 monitor, that can display max 60Hz, how can be any other card be more relevant? Reviews on 4K monitors or on 144Hz ones are one thing, but reality might be different.

Thats all you say but apparently you can't read. I didn't recommend either one I described the differences, and the difference is it is a longer card because it has 2 fans, it has 2 fans because it is overclocked and needs more cooling. Therefore with the additional cooling it can handle more of an overclock than the EVGA. Its up to him what he wants out of it.

As for your second comment, lets see its faster, benchmarks everything far higher, it can perform at high details at 1440p. but its also over $100 more money. Relevant? What the heck are you talking about. There are many games that won't run at 60fps these days at 1080p at max details without a very powerful card, more powerful than the 960. Again, maybe you should read up on these things before commenting.

 

[SoNic67]

Bull, you can't tell me that for a measly 1.6% more clock suddenly it needs another fan when mine is only at 41%. It would be enough to raise the rpm's at 44% and done...
Do you have any PROOF for what you said or is just based on assumptions?
PS: If he would had 1440p monitor he won't be asking about 960 from the start.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Bull, you can't tell me that for a measly 1.6% more clock suddenly it needs another fan when mine is only at 41%. It would be enough to raise the rpm's at 44% and done...
Do you have any PROOF for what you said or is just based on assumptions?
PS: If he would had 1440p monitor he won't be asking about 960 from the start.

300mhz more under boost is not 1.6% more clock, can you read or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? thats almost 25% more clock speed, so yes it needs more fan. How do I know this? I've owned and overclocked many GPU's you would be surprised the difference even 25mhz can make. It has to do also with the size of the heatsink which is far bigger, and to completely cover it you need 2 fans.

As for 1440p, The whole R9 390 thing was in response to someone elses recommendation of an R9 390 which I was saying is irrelevant to this discussion, its over $100 more, and while it is faster, the price difference makes it irrelevant.

 

[RCFProd]

Bull, you can't tell me that for a measly 1.6% more clock suddenly it needs another fan when mine is only at 41%. It would be enough to raise the rpm's at 44% and done...
Do you have any PROOF for what you said or is just based on assumptions?
PS: If he would had 1440p monitor he won't be asking about 960 from the start.

 

[Sakkura]

My EVGA runs at 77C in games with one fan at 41% speed. There is no need for other fans, and the number of fans not a valid recommendation for the GTX960 cards. That's all I say.
As for GTX 960 being "blown away" by R9 390 - exaggerations again. What that means EXACTLY?
If OP has just a 1920x1080 monitor, that can display max 60Hz, how can be any other card be more relevant? Reviews on 4K monitors or on 144Hz ones are one thing, but reality might be different.

There are games that would reduce a GTX 960 to less than 60 FPS at 1080p. Here's an example where a GTX 960 gets 18 FPS and an R9 290 gets 33 FPS. The R9 390 is just a 290 with more/faster memory and higher stock clocks (which would increase the performance difference).

 

[Turb0Yoda]

So to once again reiterate the answer too OP's example..

The main difference is the cooling system(1 fan v 2 fan) and the core/memory speed, which can be changed at home with EVGA PrecisionX or MSI Afterburner, both of which WORK ON ANY GPU, REGARDLESS OF VENDOR(EVGA, MSI, ASUS, etc) OR BRAND(AMD v. Nvidia).

If I were to choose, I'd always go EVGA. Why? If you have a failure,they ALWAYS CARRY THROUGH. Some of the best customer service I have seen, bar mom and pop shops. EVGA actually emulates them with their customer service.. I digress.


If you want the looks, and better cooling, MSI..

Will the dual fan setup help with temperatures, yes. At most 5 C at load with both at 100%

 

[SoNic67]

There are games that would reduce a GTX 960 to less than 60 FPS at 1080p. Here's an example where a GTX 960 gets 18 FPS and an R9 290 gets 33 FPS. The R9 390 is just a 290 with more/faster memory and higher stock clocks (which would increase the performance difference).

And as you can see those settings makes also the R9 390 drop below 60fps. So... what's the point?
Just lower the actual res, put some AA and be happy.

 

[RCFProd]

There are games that would reduce a GTX 960 to less than 60 FPS at 1080p. Here's an example where a GTX 960 gets 18 FPS and an R9 290 gets 33 FPS. The R9 390 is just a 290 with more/faster memory and higher stock clocks (which would increase the performance difference).

And as you can see those settings makes also the R9 390 drop below 60fps. So... what's the point?
Just lower the actual res, put some AA and be happy.

Or get the R9 390, put BF4 on ultra 4x MSAA, and play it at 60 fps instead of 35-40 with the GTX 960? Why is this even an argument? Equal to picking up a sword so heavy and trying to attack with it, whilst not realising you have no shield to defend yourself with at all. I don't get it like. Other thread too, complete hijacking the thread with botherless arguments. Don't do that, absolutely don't.

 

[Rogue Leader]

There are games that would reduce a GTX 960 to less than 60 FPS at 1080p. Here's an example where a GTX 960 gets 18 FPS and an R9 290 gets 33 FPS. The R9 390 is just a 290 with more/faster memory and higher stock clocks (which would increase the performance difference).

And as you can see those settings makes also the R9 390 drop below 60fps. So... what's the point?
Just lower the actual res, put some AA and be happy.

Why are you fighting this?? What is your problem. The OP doesn't care about the R9 390, it was just a suggestion by another posted which made no sense in the context of the question. Now you have turned it into a dumpster fire mess of a debate, which has nothing to do with the OP's question.

You are not helping anyone, nor are you correct in any way. You need to take your ball and go home.

 

[USAFRet]

1. Let's answer the OP's actual question

2. Numbers talk, flapping gums walk