Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 6, 2015.
The GTX960 lacks the processing power to be even remotely "future proof".....
SLI-756 is foaming at the mouth right now...
Isn't he banned?
Yeah sli756 and goldie, both the same person. banned 2x
They could have done a 3GB model with 192-bit or 256 even. Cut up some cores and it would lie well under the 970. This way, 2GB models simply aren't enough anymore with games using over 3GB vram more often. And 4GB is basically useless on the card right now
Isn't maxwell supposed to have better compression or something like that.I'll be interested in seeing a review on these, only way we'll know for sure if it was a dumb move.
Waste of money going for a 4GB version of the 960. Why even bother manufacturing them.
Better compression doesn't make up for the weak GPU. These cards are for 1080P, where 2GB is still sufficient.
There are a fair few newer titles where that simply isn't true and I'm sure there are plenty more on the way.
Just to name a few Watchdogs, AC: Unity, Ryse, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor etc. Most of which need texture resolutions turned down if you don't have more than 2GB of VRAM.
*waits for the inevitable excuse that it's because they are all bad console ports*
I was hoping for a 3 or 4 GB version with slightly better specs but I suppose that would be a completely different card. There were rumors of a 960 TI with a larger bus among other improvements but those were all posted back in January. I only game at 1080p (for now) but I am still thinking I will go with a GTX 970.
While some of them are "bad" console ports, that's not really an excuse. At 1080, and not a higher resolution down-scaled to 1080, 2GB is still sufficient. If it wasn't, we wouldn't still be getting cards with only 2GB. These cards are targeting 1080. These cards are not intended to run newer games at "max settings". They're simply intended to "get by".... If you want to run games at "max settings", look at GTX970 or 980. Mid-range cards have always required sacrifices to get the best results.
GTX970 is just fine for 1080. I'm using a 1080 display with a 970. Honestly, I'd recommend a 970 over a 960, regardless of the resolution.
Such a waste of plastic and cooler in order to make it look more than it actually is, even the gtx970 can do with half of that. See the gtx970 "mini":
still a good "budget" card in my books for any one not looking to spend big but still get good performance for past and present games.
how? even the 760 beats this, and it's cheaper. I don't see anything good about the 960 here.
EDIT: I see the 960 is around the 760, price wise. Still, the 760 is the faster card.
Nah for the price I wouldn't call it a budget card because there are better and cheaper cards than it.
$200-$240 doesn't classify a card as "budget".... It's a "mid-range" or mainstream card. GTX750Ti is a "budget" card...and actually worth it's price.
The 760 isn´t faster however in some games is just as fast, which is very disappointing for what some of us were expecting of it. Even a regular 280 with oc is a better deal:
... GTX 560 ti
I'm very confused and slightly curious as to how you came to this conclusion, considering i can't find any benchmarks to back it up
Could you guys do a review of this card, please?
I'm looking to upgrade from my old GTX 660, and the 2gb 960 doesn't impress me very much, but i think with more ram it would do OK in a few games. Seriously i game at 1680x1050 and in games like Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein The New Order, Battlefield 4, 2 gb of Ram fill up pretty fast even at this resolution.
I dont think HH will bother reviewing this card. It's just a 960 with double memory module. Meh, at 250$ you can do some much better.