Which GPU is better?

[MiscreatedG]

This GTX 970 - https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Quieter-Graphics-04G-P4-2974-KR/dp/B00NVODXR4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500646930&sr=8-1&keywords=EVGA+GTX+970%5C

or this GTX 960 - https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-GTX-960-GAMING/dp/B01IFGQUGI/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1500647204&sr=1-3&keywords=EVGA+960

 

[manddy123]

GTX 970 is better by a fair amount, doubtless.

Check this comparison for more details:
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-Nvidia-GTX-960/2577vs3165

 

[shrapnel_indie]

The 970 is the better performer. I assume you looking at them due to the 10xx series availability issues?

The 1050Ti is fairly close to the 960.

The currently hard to get 1060 series is fairly close to the 970. (if you manage a 1060, I'd recommend avoiding the 1060 3GB model unless your budget dictates as under certain circumstances, the 1050Ti could outperform it.)

 

[shrapnel_indie]

GTX 970 is better by a fair amount, doubtless.

Check this comparison for more details:
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-Nvidia-GTX-960/2577vs3165

while I wouldn't rely on userbenchmark for comparisons, in this case... I do agree the 970 is the better of the two. Although personally, I'd rather have a RX480 or 580 (AMD side) or GTX-1060 6GB (NVIDIA side)

 

[4745454b]

I'd recommend avoiding the 1060 3GB model unless your budget dictates as under certain circumstances, the 1050Ti could outperform it.

Huh? The 3GB 1060 is ~10% slower than the 6GB model due to the turned off cluster. And the odds of a memory issue hurting the 1060 while allowing the 4GB 1050 to be faster is doubtful. I would get the 3GB 1060 over the 1050ti every time.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Ti_Gaming_X/27.html

Notice the 3GB is 44% faster then the 1050TI. I looked at the list of games, only rise of the tomb raider has the 1060 3GB slower than the 1050ti. Only at 1080, and it's slower by 1FPS. ALL the other games had the 1060 faster, and by a lot. Again, if the 1060 3GB is within your budget I'd get it over the 1050TI every time.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

I'd recommend avoiding the 1060 3GB model unless your budget dictates as under certain circumstances, the 1050Ti could outperform it.

Huh? The 3GB 1060 is ~10% slower than the 6GB model due to the turned off cluster. And the odds of a memory issue hurting the 1060 while allowing the 4GB 1050 to be faster is doubtful. I would get the 3GB 1060 over the 1050ti every time.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Ti_Gaming_X/27.html

Notice the 3GB is 44% faster then the 1050TI. I looked at the list of games, only rise of the tomb raider has the 1060 3GB slower than the 1050ti. Only at 1080, and it's slower by 1FPS. ALL the other games had the 1060 faster, and by a lot. Again, if the 1060 3GB is within your budget I'd get it over the 1050TI every time.

That means GP106-300 offers exactly 10 percent less theoretical compute power than the original GP106-400. Then there's the issue of on-board RAM. A measly 3GB could prove to limit current titles, even at 1920x1080.

- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-graphics-card-roundup,4724-8.html

Frame rates really suffer, though. The Witcher 3 is another example of a game that doesn't run smoothly unless the quality settings are significantly relaxed.

- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-graphics-card-roundup,4724-8.html

And the one that pertains to what I said:

And in titles like Doom, Hitman, and to a lesser extent, Rise of the Tomb Raider, the 3GB GeForce takes care of itself by running out of memory, even at 1920x1080. If you aren’t careful to manage the 1060’s detail settings, Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1050 Ti sometimes ends up faster thanks to its 4GB of GDDR5.

- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-570-4gb,5028-18.html

[EDIT]
My point of all that was I'd only get the 3GB model IF AND ONLY IF I couldn't afford the 6GB model.... then again I'd try to bypass the 3GB limitation and go AMD instead.

 

[4745454b]

Thank you for the links, but I wonder why there is such a big difference in scores. Looking at the doom scores at 1080 from both mine and yours, it seems the 1050ti shoots up 20FPS, while the 3GB 1060 loses 30+FPS. I then went to look at the test setup. The Toms review used a 7700K I'm assuming at stock settings seeing as they didn't list any clocks. They also used 3200MHz ram, but it doesn't say if it's 8, 16, or 32GB. They also don't list the drivers used. The other review used a 6700 @ 4.5GHz, so the CPU power should be around the same. They say they used 16GBs of 3000MHz ram, so if Toms used 16GBs of 3200MHz ram they should be similar in performance ram wise as well. Certainly nothing that would explain 20-30FPS differences. Both sites said they used Vulkan of course. To be honest I'm at a loss as to why there would be such a massive difference in performance.

Edit: Other site's scores.

Bit-tech has the 3GB at 95FPS avg.
https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/graphics/gigabyte-gtx-1060-windforce-oc-3gb/6/

Guru3d has it just over 100FPS.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1060-gaming-x-3gb-review,16.html

Techreport has it at 66FPS.
http://techreport.com/review/30812/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-graphics-card-reviewed/3

Techspot has it running Vulkan around 87FPS.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1237-msi-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb/page2.html

I'm currently asking in the Mods sections if anyone has more details on the Toms review. If other sites get ~75-100FPS, I'm not sure how we got a sub 50FPS score.