R9 380 2GB Vs GTX 960 4GB

[Thunderbird2242]

Hi Guys!
I was upgrading my GPU, and I had a certain budget.
So, I have to choose b/w the Two mainstream-ish GPUs:
Zotac GTX 960 4GB AMP!
or
Sapphire R9 380 2GB
The 380 was a larger Memory bus, but I get more VRAM on the 960.
Which one will be better??
Any help at all will be appreciated!
Also, should i wait for the 970 to get cheaper(doesn't looks like its gonna get any)
And the R9 480, if it is ~240$??

 

[SoNic67]

Depends of what are your needs.

For 1920x1080 monitors, at 60FPS, the GTX960 is plenty, stable, cool, quiet. In any modern game with max settings. The 4GB memory won't do anything compared to 2GB, but it surely sounds cool.

For bragging in front of your friends with the FPS numbers that exceed the monitor framerate, you need a GTX970. They might still bust your bubble by saying that only 3.5GB are "real" on that card, but you will power trough.

For trying to be cool (like 10 years ago), get the AMD and silently suffer through the drivers madness. Haha like the recent "hotfix", see the "Resolved Issues" and "Known Issues" lists.

 

[renz496]

It is a bit useless to compare gpu spec like that. Maxwell have improve their compression technique conpared to kepler. Because of that they could get away with much smaller memory interface with 960 and save more cost by using much cheaper PCB design. Performance wise 960 and 285 is about the same. But amd rebrand 285 into 380 and design 380 so 960 is a bit faster than 960. As for the VRAM thing it depending on games. For games thst really crazy with vram usage 960 probably will end up with advantage. Nvidia actually put 960 in weird position. 2GB seems too little but 4GB also excessive. 3GB probably sweet spot for the card. But nvidia decided to minimize the cost on 960 so 128bit memory interface forcing the card to have 2GB or 4GB. I heard that nvidia end up discontinue 960 2GB in favor of 4GB model.

 

[SoNic67]

The third generation of delta color compression of textures is very efficient, so those 128bit handle more bandwidth than we where conditioned to expect.

But the storage space is still used for RAW textures.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Depends of what are your needs.

For 1920x1080 monitors, at 60FPS, the GTX960 is plenty, stable, cool, quiet. In any modern game with max settings. The 4GB memory won't do anything compared to 2GB, but it surely sounds cool.

For bragging in front of your friends with the FPS numbers that exceed the monitor framerate, you need a GTX970. They might still bust your bubble by saying that only 3.5GB are "real" on that card, but you will power trough.

For trying to be cool (like 10 years ago), get the AMD and silently suffer through the drivers madness. Haha like the recent "hotfix", see the "Resolved Issues" and "Known Issues" lists.

I wish this was a question thread and not a discussion thread so I could downvote this as your bias against AMD is not only wrong and without merit, your explanation about fps is also wrong. This however is not surprising considering past posts.

@Thunderbird, The R9 380 outperforms the GTX 960 at that pricepoint. 4GB of VRAM is not really needed at 1080p, very few games will max it out. If you get 4GB for only a small amount more than sure, but I wouldn't spend a lot for the extra VRAM you likely would never know. Despite Sonic's insistence the AMD drivers work excellently and they have a good Beta program that they update very regularly for games that come out (usually right when they are released). Nvidia betas also have similar issue lists, its what happens when they are being updated on the cutting edge iof new games.

As for the reason you would want to have better FPS it translates into smoother gameplay even beyond what your monitor can display. As well a card that can deliver over 60fps now (if you can afford it) will be better once some newer generation games come out that may drive the card harder (where the card maybe cannot normally deliver 60 fps).

 

[Thunderbird2242]

Depends of what are your needs.

For 1920x1080 monitors, at 60FPS, the GTX960 is plenty, stable, cool, quiet. In any modern game with max settings. The 4GB memory won't do anything compared to 2GB, but it surely sounds cool.

For bragging in front of your friends with the FPS numbers that exceed the monitor framerate, you need a GTX970. They might still bust your bubble by saying that only 3.5GB are "real" on that card, but you will power trough.

For trying to be cool (like 10 years ago), get the AMD and silently suffer through the drivers madness. Haha like the recent "hotfix", see the "Resolved Issues" and "Known Issues" lists.

I wish this was a question thread and not a discussion thread so I could downvote this as your bias against AMD is not only wrong and without merit, your explanation about fps is also wrong. This however is not surprising considering past posts.

@Thunderbird, The R9 380 outperforms the GTX 960 at that pricepoint. 4GB of VRAM is not really needed at 1080p, very few games will max it out. If you get 4GB for only a small amount more than sure, but I wouldn't spend a lot for the extra VRAM you likely would never know. Despite Sonic's insistence the AMD drivers work excellently and they have a good Beta program that they update very regularly for games that come out (usually right when they are released). Nvidia betas also have similar issue lists, its what happens when they are being updated on the cutting edge iof new games.

As for the reason you would want to have better FPS it translates into smoother gameplay even beyond what your monitor can display. As well a card that can deliver over 60fps now (if you can afford it) will be better once some newer generation games come out that may drive the card harder (where the card maybe cannot normally deliver 60 fps).

Well, as far as price goes, Surprisingly, the 960 and the 380 are equal in price.
So, I guess that more VRAM is better but, I do get a larger 256-bit bus in the 380.
I am leaning towards the 960, because of slightly higher VRAM.
but, I guess that it would be better that I wait instead of buying anyone of those 2 GPUs.
Polaris 10 looks very tempting, but I think will cost >250$, so out of my budget.
I hope for some significant price drops in the cost of the R9 390 or even the GTX 970.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Polaris was just announced and tbh we don't even know how high the cards will go. If you're hoping for price drops you should keep an eye out daily once the 1070/1080 is released, the older cards tend to drop in price and then sell out fairly quickly at those lower prices, then, shockingly, the prices go back up as stock lowers. This is likely due to there still being a small level of demand for folks who just want replacements or want to SLI/Crossfire.

Either choice is a fine one (960 or 380), however if you can afford a faster card its worth it, as it will last longer with newer games, and should you decide to get a better monitor or upgrade your PC some day it will be good to carry over.

 

[okcnaline]

R9 380 outperforms GTX 960; benchmarks don't lie (at least, in this case, NVIDIA and AMD didn't do any numbo jumbo to spoof the benchmarks). Specs from a single side of comparison doesn't tell anything.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,4178-6.html

 

[JohnD13]

If you're worried about the VRAM you can always go for the R9 380 4gb edition which is on the same price and performance point as the 960 and a tad stronger based on some benchmarks. That's what I got considering getting the 970(which was at the time quite hot) was exceeding my budget.

 

[Mike 777]

It depends on the games you want to play. I was recently debating between the 960 and the r9 380.

I went with the asus gtx 960 strix 4gb and could not have been happier.

I mostly play Overwatch and I noticed that my VRAM usage while playing is around 65%. Maybe I am wrong, but I came to the conclusion that it's a good thing I got the 4Gb version, even if everyone told me that the 4gb is useless.

My 2 cents.

Mike

 

[okcnaline]

Not worth the 4GB version...
1) GTX 960 and R9 380's cores doesn't perform well enough to take advantage of 4GB VRAM anyways. It's designed for 1080P medium, not even max or 4K.
2) Those 4GB cards are $30 more...

 

[Mike 777]

Not worth the 4GB version...
1) GTX 960 and R9 380's cores doesn't perform well enough to take advantage of 4GB VRAM anyways. It's designed for 1080P medium, not even max or 4K.
2) Those 4GB cards are $30 more...

So why am I using 3gb of VRAM while playing overwatch on 1080p? It looks like my VRAM usage would be capped at 100% if I would have gotten the 2gb version.

 

[okcnaline]

Overwatch at what settings?

 

[Mike 777]

Everything on epic (max), I get around 60-65 fps

 

[Iceman21]

I have r9 380 and in some games 4gb of VRAM are useful. In gta 5 it use up to 3.5 gb according to msi afterburner and gpu-z with my settings (constant 60fps in most places and 45-50 in the mountain). In witcher 3 it use around 2 gb.
According to digital foundry (youtube chanel) you will have less stuttering with 4 gb on both gtx 960 and r9 380. It will not boost your fps, but the gaming will be smoother.

If you dont need new gpu now (if you have working one) wait to see what AMD will release in midrange segment.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Depends of what are your needs.

For 1920x1080 monitors, at 60FPS, the GTX960 is plenty, stable, cool, quiet. In any modern game with max settings. The 4GB memory won't do anything compared to 2GB, but it surely sounds cool.

For bragging in front of your friends with the FPS numbers that exceed the monitor framerate, you need a GTX970. They might still bust your bubble by saying that only 3.5GB are "real" on that card, but you will power trough.

For trying to be cool (like 10 years ago), get the AMD and silently suffer through the drivers madness. Haha like the recent "hotfix", see the "Resolved Issues" and "Known Issues" lists.

I wish this was a question thread and not a discussion thread so I could downvote this as your bias against AMD is not only wrong and without merit, your explanation about fps is also wrong. This however is not surprising considering past posts.

@Thunderbird, The R9 380 outperforms the GTX 960 at that pricepoint. 4GB of VRAM is not really needed at 1080p, very few games will max it out. If you get 4GB for only a small amount more than sure, but I wouldn't spend a lot for the extra VRAM you likely would never know. Despite Sonic's insistence the AMD drivers work excellently and they have a good Beta program that they update very regularly for games that come out (usually right when they are released). Nvidia betas also have similar issue lists, its what happens when they are being updated on the cutting edge iof new games.

As for the reason you would want to have better FPS it translates into smoother gameplay even beyond what your monitor can display. As well a card that can deliver over 60fps now (if you can afford it) will be better once some newer generation games come out that may drive the card harder (where the card maybe cannot normally deliver 60 fps).

Drop in to say ´+1, hurts us all when not honest advise is given, to someone who is not as up to date with what's going on with graphics cards.

 

[okcnaline]

Exactly, no wonder why VRAM uses 3GB. Lemme repeat myself.
GTX 960 and R9 380 is designed for 1080P medium.

YES, the VRAM would be capped. Turn it down to medium; it'll be 60 FPS, VRAM would be 2GB, etc.

 

[Mike 777]

Exactly, no wonder why VRAM uses 3GB. Lemme repeat myself.
GTX 960 and R9 380 is designed for 1080P medium.

YES, the VRAM would be capped. Turn it down to medium; it'll be 60 FPS, VRAM would be 2GB, etc.

Hmmm.. Why would I play the game on medium? I upgraded from a GT 640 (was in my prebuilt pc that I bought from besbuy, and I could run the game on medium only on 30fps though) to be able to play on high or epic at 60 frames.

Everyone told me to go for the 2GB and I didn't listen and went for the 4GB version anyways. Guess I was right because I am able to run the game at max settings and get 60 fps constantly (don't need more than that, I have a 60 Hz monitor) and I am using more than 2GB of VRAM.

Depending on the games you want to play, I would suggest getting the 4GB version if you can get a deal on it.

 

[Rogue Leader]

I don't agree with turning the settings down to make up for less memory. If the card can handle max settings and can run it at 1080p thats just dumb to back them down.

Let me rephrase what I said earlier, most games can max out or at least med-high in 1080p on a 2GB 380 or 960. That said SOME games will take advantage of 4gb. This is a known fact. Some games are also not very well programmed and so may have some slight stuttering when the GPU is short on ram (because it then reverts to system ram which is far slower).

The point of this explanation is there is no catch all, and in most cases 2GB is fine, however as I said if 4GB doesn't cost much more (depending on card/model) it may well be worth it. When it comes to your budget you need to decide.

 

[okcnaline]

Because you're getting 60FPS on stuff like BF4, Witcher 3, FO4, etc. at medium...?

 

[Mike 777]

I don't agree with turning the settings down to make up for less memory. If the card can handle max settings and can run it at 1080p thats just dumb to back them down.

Let me rephrase what I said earlier, most games can max out or at least med-high in 1080p on a 2GB 380 or 960. That said SOME games will take advantage of 4gb. This is a known fact. Some games are also not very well programmed and so may have some slight stuttering when the GPU is short on ram (because it then reverts to system ram which is far slower).

The point of this explanation is there is no catch all, and in most cases 2GB is fine, however as I said if 4GB doesn't cost much more (depending on card/model) it may well be worth it. When it comes to your budget you need to decide.

Exactly my thoughts!

+1

 

[Mike 777]

Because you're getting 60FPS on stuff like BF4, Witcher 3, FO4, etc. at medium...?

I specifically said it depends on the game you are going to play. When I told you that I was getting 60 fps and around 3gb of VRAM on epic, you told me to turn it down to medium to use less than 2gb... How does that make sense?

 

[okcnaline]

Because higher settings means that the game decompresses textures of higher sizes.

 

[Pc6777]

go for a 970, I got one for 270 dollars a few days ago and you can get it on amazon for 260 or so dollars, because the 1070 is coming out soon the 970's are dirt cheap now if you look hard enough.

 

[renz496]

I have r9 380 and in some games 4gb of VRAM are useful. In gta 5 it use up to 3.5 gb according to msi afterburner and gpu-z with my settings (constant 60fps in most places and 45-50 in the mountain). In witcher 3 it use around 2 gb.
According to digital foundry (youtube chanel) you will have less stuttering with 4 gb on both gtx 960 and r9 380. It will not boost your fps, but the gaming will be smoother.

If you dont need new gpu now (if you have working one) wait to see what AMD will release in midrange segment.

2GB will be fine if not for the new console. with the new console have significantly more RAM/VRAM than the previous gen we start seeing more and more games use more VRAM even when the said game were not that graphically impressive. and i agree with the stutter issue. assassin creed unity is one example where 960 4GB have an advantage vs 2GB variant. also in case of 960 sometimes the 4GB model only about $10 more. in the end nvidia discontinue 960 2GB in favor of 4GB variant.