The argument over the GTX 970 is that the advertised 4GB of VRAM and 256-bit memory bus cannot be utilised to their full potential because of a disabled component in the memory subsystem. If they cut this GPU down for a GTX 960 Ti by disabling 1/4 of the memory subsystem and including 3GB of VRAM, you would be left with a 192-bit bus and 3GB of VRAM that would not have the issue of the GTX 970.I wonder what reviewers will think of a GTX 960 Ti if it is indeed a 25% cut-down GTX 980. That's a whole GB of VRAM in the gutter, lol.
If the system page file is being used above 2GB, they have managed to exceed both the VRAM on the card and the system RAM. It is hardly Nvidia's fault if this causes slow performance, and limiting the page file beyond where it is required is likely to cause a crash in Windows under any circumstances.also having big pagefile on SSD also helps it seems,
(they notice the pagefile increased largely after go above vram barrier)
so try limit the pagefile to 2-4 Gb and soon after their system crash
Even the last 512MB VRAM on the card is still faster than accessing system RAM through the PCI-E bus, and this is orders of magnitude faster than the page file.
Simply put, the tester is using settings that their system is not capable of running and a GTX 980 or R9 290X would not fix that.