# ASUS GTX 960 STRIX OC 2 GB



## W1zzard (Jan 22, 2015)

The ASUS GTX 960 STRIX OC is a custom variant of the GTX 960 that comes with an overclock out of the box on both GPU and memory. It is also the only card that features a backplate. Like all other boards, it will completely turn off its fans in idle and light gaming for the perfect noise-free experience.

*Show full review*


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 22, 2015)

Mixed feelings all around. It is a 1080P champ, no doubt and GTX 770 and GTX 760 can now finally rest. It's just that... there's no big price to performance leap here.

260~$ model, let's see what you'll bring.


----------



## 64K (Jan 22, 2015)

Well, it looks like what was rumored is true. It falls in between a GTX 760 and a GTX 770 and is priced $10 more than the reference GTX 960 (if they release one). I think it's a nice 1080p card. The next GPU should be either a GTX 960Ti or a GTX 965 and will probably fall in between a GTX 770 and a GTX 780.


----------



## damric (Jan 22, 2015)

While it might smell sour, it's still $50 cheaper than when the GTX 460 made its debut, and we loved that. Problem here is the R9 280 is so fast and cheap even if it is a power hog.


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 22, 2015)

R9 280 is also hell of an overclocker (when got the HD 7950 when slightly before it was out, and took the core from 800 to 1150, my mind was blown to bits from not being able to tell anybody).


----------



## Nabarun (Jan 22, 2015)

So this card is aimed at 1080p, but still performs very poorly for AAA titles like Crysis 3. Even FC4 isn't anywhere near 60fps. the R9 280/285/280x seem to be performing much better, although consuming more power. The sad thing is, even with 2-way sli the performance for crysis 3 doesn't seem to be getting anywhere near 60fps. Crysis 3 is definitely not a game to judge this card with, but still


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 22, 2015)

We are using Crysis 3 Ultra with 4x AA


----------



## Nabarun (Jan 22, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> We are using Crysis 3 Ultra with 4x AA


Thanks for reminding that. I'd like to see how it does in "high" settings with no AA. The prices here are much more that what the import reports are showing. Will wait to see more price wars.


----------



## krusha03 (Jan 22, 2015)

Always love the TPU GPU reviews, however as others stated, 280 uses more power but can be had for up to $50 less in the US


> Display connectivity options include one DVI port, one HDMI port, and three mini-DisplayPorts.


Small note about the text,  from what i can see those are full sized DisplayPorts. I think the same was written for the other GTX 960s as well


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 22, 2015)

krusha03 said:


> full sized DisplayPorts


Fixed. I swear I read that passage like 10 times ..


----------



## jabbadap (Jan 22, 2015)

Full hevc or not? Anandtech says full fixed hw hevc, can you confirm?(Pardon if it reads somewhere, did not catch my eye)


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 22, 2015)

jabbadap said:


> Full hevc or not? Anandtech says full fixed hw hevc, can you confirm?(Pardon if it reads somewhere, did not catch my eye)





			
				NVIDIA Reviewer's Guide said:
			
		

> Because of its low power operation, some potential GeForce GTX 960 users may wish to use this GPU inside their home theater PC. Therefore to satisfy the needs of this audience, one new addition that’s been added to GM206 is support for H.265 (HEVC) encoding and decoding. GTX 980’s NVENC video engine offers native support for H.265 encode only, no decode. With the amount of 4K content expected to explode in the coming years, GM206 also adds native support for HDCP 2.2 content protection over HDMI.


----------



## DarkOCean (Jan 22, 2015)

An r9 290 is 64% faster and only costs 35% more or even 25% more if you count the rebate while having double the ram (and uses more power , I know) so what can I say? ...this one sucks, badly, imho.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2015)

Nabarun said:


> So this card is aimed at 1080p, but still performs very poorly for AAA titles like Crysis 3. Even FC4 isn't anywhere near 60fps. the R9 280/285/280x seem to be performing much better, although consuming more power.



In FC4 this card is only 2 FPS slower than a 780!  And in Crysis3, none of the cards, not even the 290, were close to 60FPS.  That game is a GPU killer.



DarkOCean said:


> An r9 290 is 64% faster and only costs 35% more or even 25% more if you count the rebate while having double the ram (and uses more power , I know) so what can I say? ...this one sucks, badly, imho.



64% Faster?  This looks like 38% faster to me:






And the 280 costs right about 35% more.  Seem right in line to me.  And the 290x is ~50% faster and costs ~50% more.  It seems like the 960 fits right in line.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 22, 2015)

DarkOCean said:


> An r9 290 is 64% faster and only costs 35% more or even 25% more if you count the rebate while having double the ram (and uses more power , I know) so what can I say? ...this one sucks, badly, imho.


 
comparing a top tier card with an entry level one.......  Given the top tier is ridiculusly cheap right now....but still a fight between an in his prime Mike Tyson vs a Sugar ray lennord.... man i'm showing my age on that one.


----------



## rainzor (Jan 22, 2015)

A bit of OT, but i was just wandering what the hell is going on with AMD cards in WOW benchmark? They don't seem to lose a single fps switching from 1440p to 4K  I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, i din't see it.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 22, 2015)

rainzor said:


> A bit of OT, but i was just wandering what the hell is going on with AMD cards in WOW benchmark? They don't seem to lose a single fps switching from 1440p to 4K  I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, i din't see it.


i've noticed it too. and double checked, no idea what's happening. it's really running at that res


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2015)

You know, I just noticed on this card that only 2 of the heatpipes actually make contact with the GPU due to the rectangular shape of the GPU die.  Not that it really makes a difference in the temps, obviously from the results.  I just found it interesting and remember how everyone jumped down EVGA's throat saying their cooler was "defective" because one of the heatpipes didn't touch the GPU...


----------



## RCoon (Jan 22, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> i've noticed it too. and double checked, no idea what's happening. it's really running at that res



Running in DX11 mode?
I've also heard older drivers from AMD work way better than their new drivers for WoW. Most if not all of my old guild are running AMD cards for WoW on year old drivers because of the better frames at 1440/1600p. Most WoW forums recommend AMD cards, not sure if for this reason, or just cost.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 22, 2015)

wow 760 - 770 was a 20% gap, 960 - 970 is 58%... almost seems like there's room for 2 cards in between there, not just a 960 ti. Trouble is there's only a 100-130$ window to work with in price difference. The card seems to fit perfectly within the maxwell mentality almost no noise, super low power draw, affordable, yet still plays everything at 1080p. I'm with newtechie1 here, what's not to like?


----------



## DarkOCean (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> In FC4 this card is only 2 FPS slower than a 780!  And in Crysis3, none of the cards, not even the 290, were close to 60FPS.  That game is a GPU killer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...


----------



## ChristTheGreat (Jan 22, 2015)

64K said:


> Well, it looks like what was rumored is true. It falls in between a GTX 760 and a GTX 770 and is priced $10 more than the reference GTX 960 (if they release one). I think it's a nice 1080p card. The next GPU should be either a GTX 960Ti or a GTX 965 and will probably fall in between a GTX 770 and a GTX 780.



That is what I saw too.. The difference betweem the GTX 970 and the GTX 960 is just huge. performance per watt isn't as good as the 970 and 980.

But the card at this price, will be nice in steam console for sure! low heat, great performance!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2015)

DarkOCean said:


>




Obviously someone didn't read the review.  What a shame, W1z spent all that time doing a huge write-up on the purpose of the card and you just ignored it...

If you want an idea of how insignificant 3840x2160 just take a look at the Steam hardware survey for resolution.  As of Dec 2014 3840x2160 made up a whopping 0.04% of steam users, while 1920x1080 and below make up over 65%.  But yeah, an inexpensive card targeted at 1080p gaming "sucks" because it can't compete with more expensive cards in resolutions that no one is using...


----------



## DarkOCean (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Obviously someone didn't read the review.  What a shame, W1z spent all that time doing a huge write-up on the purpose of the card and you just ignored it...


???


----------



## N3M3515 (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> In FC4 this card is only 2 FPS slower than a 780!  And in Crysis3, none of the cards, not even the 290, were close to 60FPS.  That game is a GPU killer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Asus gtx 960 strix costs $210
gigabyte r9 280x windforce oc costs $240
That's like 14% ?
Anyway you're right, same increase in $ and in perf. 
PD: Or maybe you where talking about the 290, my bad if that's the case.


----------



## jabbadap (Jan 22, 2015)

DarkOCean said:


> ???



2160p fps:s are mostly under 30 even with r9-290 so you would better have two of them. And this card is ment for fhd gaming, and yes 128bit is too low. Benchmarks are all over the place. On FHD where higher bandwidth/vram is needed this plums near gtx660(AC:U) but when it does not it even beats r9-280x(civ:be).


----------



## Recus (Jan 22, 2015)

DarkOCean said:


> ???



GTX 960 is good for 1080p gaming (if you use custom game settings would be perfect), R9 290 for 4k is not. Use R9 290 for 1080p is joke.


----------



## krusha03 (Jan 22, 2015)

N3M3515 said:


> Asus gtx 960 strix costs $210
> gigabyte r9 280x windforce oc costs $240
> That's like 14% ?
> Anyway you're right, same increase in $ and in perf.
> PD: Or maybe you where talking about the 290, my bad if that's the case.


I think he meant the 290. Speaking of per/$ the 285 is same performance and at $180-190 about 10% cheaper, the 280 can be had for as low as $150 after rebate which is about 30% cheaper and its only 5-10% slower, and the cheapest 280x is currently at $205. It all comes at what are your priorities, lower power consumption noise and heat, cheapest card for 1080p or best performance in a price bracket regardless of noise and heat output


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 22, 2015)

damric said:


> While it might smell sour, it's still $50 cheaper than when the GTX 460 made its debut, and we loved that.


The GTX 460 is a true mid range card, while this is not.  It should be called the GTS 950. (pull up a review of a GTS 450 and compare pictures of the cards without their coolers)


yogurt_21 said:


> I'm with newtechie1 here, what's not to like?


The extra $50 that Nvidia's charging for these because AMD's got nothing.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Jan 22, 2015)

Disappointing to see how the GTX 970 beats it with 50% more performance. That's ridiculous.


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 22, 2015)

Guys, I know the GTX 970 is nearly double the performance, but it costs nearly $130 to $150 more. (If the GTX 960 does indeed come out at $200.)


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 22, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Disappointing to see how the GTX 970 beats it with 50% more performance. That's ridiculous.



Makes sense with all the extra muscle it's packing. 

One thing that amazes me about the GTX 960 is it's 128bit memory bus & it still performs really well even with that lower bus compared to other cards with the normal 256bit bus. Nvidia must of did something right there


----------



## Jeffredo (Jan 22, 2015)

The intriguing things for me are the 128 bit card matching a GTX 670 or R9 285 and beating a GTX 760 with much lower power consumption.  Its definitely no big performance leap, but if you compare it to its real and intended predecessor (the GTX 660) its a pretty good step up.  Now they just need to fill in the $200-$330 gap.


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 22, 2015)

My local supplier here in the Philippines already has a couple of ZOTAC 960s available. I'll see if I can snag one up.


----------



## Jeffredo (Jan 22, 2015)

rainzor said:


> A bit of OT, but i was just wandering what the hell is going on with AMD cards in WOW benchmark? They don't seem to lose a single fps switching from 1440p to 4K  I'm sorry if this was mentioned before, i din't see it.



Now if they would just run smoothly at 1080p (or 1920x1200).  I sold an R9 290 primarily because it stuttered quite a lot on Ultra settings in Warlords of Draenor.  Replace it with a GTX 780 and its smooth as silk on the same settings.  So yeah, their raw FPS may look fine but game FPS keeps popping around from 55-60 FPS in many areas. Its absolutely an Nvidia favored game.


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 22, 2015)

Cheeseball said:


> My local supplier here in the Philippines already has a couple of ZOTAC 960s available. I'll see if I can snag one up.
> 
> View attachment 61962



You wanna upgrade from a HD7950-like power to a GTX 960?
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_960_STRIX_OC/images/perfrel_1920.gif

Wh... Why?


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

Amazon has a bunch of 960s listed but I didn't see any in stock.
http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=10779868011&tag=tec06d-20

Zotac for $199 is the cheapest and there are several very near that. I'm confident that it will be easy to snag one in the fall for <$150 and possibly $120. But it really depends on what AMD does. Nvidia didn't hit AMD so hard with the 960 as they did with the 970. The 280 and 285 are already priced competitively.


----------



## lZKoce (Jan 22, 2015)

I am not really gonna comment on whether 960 is worth it, but I was really interested in the "Strix" series from Asus. I am being bombed with their ad on every GSL Starcraft tournament from South Korea I watch. Naturally, I was wondering if it's that good. "Make a good choice!" is what they said and by this review it seems it lives up to its name.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 22, 2015)

thebluebumblebee said:


> The extra $50 that Nvidia's charging for these because AMD's got nothing.


IDK a standard 285 by W1zzards' findings is right there in the ring punching it out @1080... I think Nvidia knows they have to be aggressive on price to have this make any ground.  Power number here are good with this 960, but will want to see other reviews that really dig into power (sophisticated monitoring) across several titles to see how it pans out.

Interestingly Egg is already offering a $10 rebate on the EVGA with a the ACX cooler (02G-P4-2963-KR), so final cost $200 ($5.67 for shipping) I found it strange EVGA already indicate Rev 2.0+, however that might be just for the ACX cooler.

Consider this Powercolor R9 285 Turbo Duo (945Mhz) 2GB for $163 -AR$20 w/FS
http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=101468&vpn=AXR9%20285%202GBD5%2DTDHE&manufacture=PowerColor&promoid=1261

I see given the cost of the BOM for these 960's, we should some assertive pricing positions from both sides.


----------



## 64K (Jan 22, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> Interestingly Egg is already offering a $10 rebate on the EVGA with a the ACX cooler (02G-P4-2963-KR), so final cost $200 ($5.67 for shipping) I found it strange EVGA already indicate Rev 2.0+, however that might be just for the ACX cooler.



Yeah, Rev 2.0 is referring to the ACX cooler. Where that came from is when EVGA first released the SC 970 with the original ACX cooler one of the heat pipes didn't make contact with the GPU so they fixed that and called it ACX Rev 2.0


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> Power number here are good with this 960, but will want to see other reviews that really dig into power (sophisticated monitoring)



You might be interested in this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-8.html


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> Interestingly Egg is already offering a $10 rebate on the EVGA with a the ACX cooler (02G-P4-2963-KR), so final cost $200 ($5.67 for shipping)



I don't consider a $10 rebate big enough to fool with, but Newegg also has a $25 off $200 deal using Visa Checkout, which brings a few 960s down to ~$180 shipped. 
http://slickdeals.net/f/7606726-new...-savings-25-off-200-purchases-w-visa-checkout


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2015)

jabbadap said:


> yes 128bit is too low



I don't think the 128-bit is too low, thanks to nVidia's lossless compression, I think 2GB is too low for anything beyond 1080p.  Once we see these with more memory(anyone else notice the blank memory pads on the PCB), I think we'll really see the power of the GPU come out.




thebluebumblebee said:


> The extra $50 that Nvidia's charging for these because AMD's got nothing.



That seems to be more a problem of AMD...


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't think the 128-bit is too low, thanks to nVidia's lossless compression, I think 2GB is too low for anything beyond 1080p.  Once we see these with more memory(anyone else notice the blank memory pads on the PCB), I think we'll really see the power of the GPU come out.



I think it is all very balanced... the bandwidth, vram amount, shaders, etc. All aspects very near their limit at the same time. 3-4GB would be nice (even a necessity) for SLI, but a waste of money otherwise.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Jan 22, 2015)

Lionheart said:


> Makes sense with all the extra muscle it's packing





Jeffredo said:


> The intriguing things for me are the 128 bit card matching a GTX 670 or R9 285 and beating a GTX 760 with much lower power consumption.  Its definitely no big performance leap, but if you compare it to its real and intended predecessor (the GTX 660) its a pretty good step up.  Now they just need to fill in the $200-$330 gap.



To me, this GTX 960 is a card from the low-mid levels of the market, and 2 GB, for a videocard meant to be sold in 2015, is not enough.
It is more like a GTX 950 Ti at best.


They need now 960 Ti, 970 SE, etc to fill this gigantic hole in performance.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2015)

rruff said:


> I think it is all very balanced... the bandwidth, vram amount, shaders, etc. All aspects very near their limit at the same time. 3-4GB would be nice (even a necessity) for SLI, but a waste of money otherwise.


I agree, for a single card aimed at 1080p it definitely is very well balanced.  The only reason I would like to see a version with more memory is for SLI.  I think two with 3GB would be awesome for 1440p.  Of course to make that worth while the price would also have to drop since a 970 would be a cheaper option for 1440p compared to 2 960s.


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> since a 970 would be a cheaper option for 1440p compared to 2 960s.



Quite true.... except that 2x 4GB 960s would be at 980 level if the SLI worked well.


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> To me, this GTX 960 is a card from the low-mid levels of the market, and 2 GB, for a videocard meant to be sold in 2015, is not enough.
> It is more like a GTX 950 Ti at best.



There are about a dozen reviews on the GTX 960 last I checked, and they prove that what ever specs it has are enough for it's intended performance level and price. I'm impressed with how balanced it appears to be... like if it had a higher spec in any area it would be wasted. I have a GTX 750 1GB, and that is enough ram for *it*. *You* may need more than 2GB of ram, but in that case you will also need more processing power.... a more expensive card.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2015)

rruff said:


> Quite true.... except that 2x 4GB 960s would be at 980 level if the SLI worked well.


Yes, if SLI scaled perfectly you'd be correct.  But SLI very rarely scales 100%, most of the time it is closer to 80-85%.  But even if it was closer to 100%, I still think I'd go with a 970 because it is cheaper and will handle up to 1440p just fine, and puts you in a great position to go 4k with a second 970 when the time is right.


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Once we see these with more memory(anyone else notice the blank memory pads on the PCB), I think we'll really see the power of the GPU come out.



^~This~^

I want to see a 4GB version tested and then an SLI test with 4GB 960s.


----------



## Xzibit (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't think the 128-bit is too low, thanks to nVidia's lossless compression, I think 2GB is too low for anything beyond 1080p.  Once we see these with more memory(anyone else notice the blank memory pads on the PCB), I think we'll really see the power of the GPU come out.



Tom Petersen from Nvidia said a 4GB version wouldn't make sense and isn't in the plans during the PCPer live stream.  Doesn't mean the AiBs wont make one.


----------



## xorbe (Jan 22, 2015)

What are the odds of a 3GB 960 Ti mini card being produced, that's the upgrade my 2GB 760 mini needs in my HTPC.


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> But SLI very rarely scales 100%, most of the time it is closer to 80-85%.



I'm already taking that into account. According to TPUs summary chart, the reference 980 is 79% faster than a reference 960.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 22, 2015)

> Given its various components, it wouldn't shock us if NVIDIA can sell this card for *half* its current price


(something's missing here and that's sad)


----------



## rruff (Jan 22, 2015)

And the reason they aren't selling it for less is lack of competition...

I don't agree that they could sell it for half though, and if they could that would mean they could sell the 980 for less than $200. They aren't getting that rich.


----------



## frdmftr (Jan 23, 2015)

Maxwell seems very efficient but I don't see any clock rate discussion. I feel like Nvidia has given us a sleight of hand. Just for fun on my work computer I decided to OC my 7850 to 1200 on the core and 1275 on the memory. The results were as I expected. My 1g card with the cheap block of aluminum as a heat sink bench marked higher than the latest card from Nvidia.  I bring this up due to the fact that both the GTX 960 and the 7850 have the same core count of 1024. That being said clock to clock my old base model 7850 beats a GTX 960.
If anyone else cares to look into this I have included a GPU Z shot and I used 1.2v on the core to achieve the OC


----------



## frdmftr (Jan 23, 2015)

rruff said:


> And the reason they aren't selling it for less is lack of competition...
> 
> I don't agree that they could sell it for half though, and if they could that would mean they could sell the 980 for less than $200. They aren't getting that rich.



Yep, Nvidia has been gouging us since the GTX 6XX series. Yes I know, price/performance blah, blah, blah


----------



## frdmftr (Jan 23, 2015)

rruff said:


> And the reason they aren't selling it for less is lack of competition...
> 
> I don't agree that they could sell it for half though, and if they could that would mean they could sell the 980 for less than $200. They aren't getting that rich.



Actually, they could get rather close to half price. Historically the 204 chip such as a 460/560 going all the way back to well the 6800 series? has been released between $199-$249. Given that fact that would put the GTX 980 in the $275 range.

And yes, no competition is the reason for the pricing.

Like I stated when the 980 came out, Thankfully Intel doesn't price the way Nvidia does. If they did the 4790K would be a $1,000 processor and the 4690K that is the gamers choice would be $500. Just think about that as you hand over your hard earned dollars for an Nvidia product.


----------



## rruff (Jan 23, 2015)

frdmftr said:


> Thankfully Intel doesn't price the way Nvidia does. If they did the 4790K would be a $1,000 processor and the 4690K that is the gamers choice would be $500. Just think about that as you hand over your hard earned dollars for an Nvidia product.



Intel is at least as guilty as Nvidia. The i5K is essentially a pair G3258 processors, yet the later can be bought for 1/4th the price. I don't think you understand how the market works. It's product placement, what the market can bear, and competition that determine prices. And if you fail to get enough total revenue to cover your costs, then eventually you go bankrupt. They can and do take a loss on some products just to keep market share. 

Nvidia has seen some steady earnings growth the last few years but nothing outstanding. They aren't getting rich in other words. A company needs to consider many complex factors when they design, manufacture, market and sell products. They have a big investment in research and facilities. Sure once everything is set up and working smoothly to make a GTX 980, the marginal cost for each card might be $20 or less to the factory. A lot of people find that shocking. But they've already spent many millions to get to that point, and need to sell a lot to break even. EVGA and Sapphire add their bit, and a big mark up, and then the retailers as well. 

AMD is in a tough position now in the GPU and CPU markets. They have smaller market share for good reason, and the smaller their share is, the less they can afford to spend on R&D... and it can quickly turn into a disaster. It looks like they decided a couple years ago to sort of coast with old architecture in both markets. Unless they get to the point soon where they can trade blows with both Nvidia and Intel on tech and not just aggressive pricing I don't see how they can survive.


----------



## xfia (Jan 23, 2015)

i dont see any real performance gains in the desktop market for a long time now..  x79 to x99?  dont think anyone with a nice x79 is rushing out to upgrade. ivy to haswell? yeah.. kepler to maxwell? maxwell pulls performance from a higher clock rate and boasts efficiency. amd is still very much competitive in performance for gpu's just not in efficiency but its also a arch that is years old.
most gains we see is in efficiency that matters most for low power battery devices. 
thats why i like what the hsa foundation is trying to do.. something revolutionary? maybe or maybe not but its actually interesting to read about.


----------



## SirMango (Jan 23, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> You know, I just noticed on this card that only 2 of the heatpipes actually make contact with the GPU due to the rectangular shape of the GPU die.  Not that it really makes a difference in the temps, obviously from the results.  I just found it interesting and remember how everyone jumped down EVGA's throat saying their cooler was "defective" because one of the heatpipes didn't touch the GPU...


Temperatures would probably be a bit cooler if all of the heatpipes made contact. Whether that makes any difference in real world (i.e. for overclocking and fan profiles), I'm not sure. I'm surprised ASUS designed the cooler that way though.


----------



## gamble (Jan 23, 2015)

Strix the best 960 so far?  Trying to look thru the reviews but this seems to have the best price, temps, and OC out of the box for core/mem...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 23, 2015)

.......surprised as to amount of people who just don get it. ...... this is not a high end card......its a 1080 card. It works for what it is.  Im sure we'll see a juiced version soon.   I guess its all a compliment when a 1080  is compared to a top tier.   Can't wait to see what comes next from both camps.  Whether its cpus apus or  gpus.... there is a slot for each iteration.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 23, 2015)

frdmftr said:


> Like I stated when the 980 came out, Thankfully Intel doesn't price the way Nvidia does. If they did the 4790K would be a $1,000 processor and the 4690K that is the gamers choice would be $500. Just think about that as you hand over your hard earned dollars for an Nvidia product.



Maybe you missed the entire 2011 socket series...

The 4790k is the GTX970.  Both Intel and nVidia give decent deals on some products but then massively overcharge for higher end products.


----------



## rruff (Jan 23, 2015)

gamble said:


> Strix the best 960 so far?  Trying to look thru the reviews but this seems to have the best price, temps, and OC out of the box for core/mem...



Look at the Tom's Hardware review. They got some weird power spikes on the Strix. I don't understand what it means and I'm not sure if they do either. Maybe it's nothing. The Strix looks good otherwise. I like that the fans spin down at idle. 



ensabrenoir said:


> .......surprised as to amount of people who just don get it. ...... this is not a high end card......its a 1080 card.



Yes, the hate on some forums is amazing. So over the top I wonder if they are paid shills. Or are people really that dense? Ok, I know the later is true...


----------



## Steevo (Jan 23, 2015)

ensabrenoir said:


> .......surprised as to amount of people who just don get it. ...... this is not a high end card......its a 1080 card. It works for what it is.  Im sure we'll see a juiced version soon.   I guess its all a compliment when a 1080  is compared to a top tier.   Can't wait to see what comes next from both camps.  Whether its cpus apus or  gpus.... there is a slot for each iteration.


No, the issue is people see a 1080 $200 card that is new getting its ass whipped by 25% by a 3 year old card from the competitor that is also cheaper. So where is the market for this, and the incentive to buy unless you are buying simply for brand and not performance $

Its too expensive to be a HTPC card, and AMD already has the video market edge on Nvidia.
Its too big to fit into smaller office/HTPC cases and too expensive for a cheap office build.
It doesn't overclock well.
It gets beaten by older cards that are cheaper.
It doesn't have the computational power to take advantage of the features offered, like DSR. 


What it does have going for it is it will save a few watts of power when on and idling, buy so would a 750, and for less money.

So if you could have X performance for $200, or X + 25% performance for $90-210 depending on if you would buy it used, or found a good deal, the logical choice would be........


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 23, 2015)

Steevo said:


> No, the issue is people see a 1080 $200 card that is new getting its ass whipped by 25% by a 3 year old card from the competitor that is also cheaper. So where is the market for this, and the incentive to buy unless you are buying simply for brand and not performance $
> 
> Its too expensive to be a HTPC card, and AMD already has the video market edge on Nvidia.
> Its too big to fit into smaller office/HTPC cases and too expensive for a cheap office build.
> ...



Getting beat by an older card from a higher class that's pretty much EOL and been drastically discounted. ...no shame in that.  Almost akin to either buying an older used Benz or a new Infiniti. ...


----------



## ViperXTR (Jan 23, 2015)

Jeffredo said:


> The intriguing things for me are the 128 bit card matching a GTX 670 or R9 285 and beating a GTX 760 with much lower power consumption.  Its definitely no big performance leap, but if you compare it to its real and intended predecessor (the GTX 660) its a pretty good step up.  Now they just need to fill in the $200-$330 gap.


That small 128bit bus is being backed up by nVidia's 3rd generation delta color compression, the same/similar one used by R9 285's color compression

The GTX 960TI if it ever comes out would probably be like the ol 660Ti, cut down GM204 , lesser shaders vs 970 (but more vs 960 vanilla), slightly higher TMU and ROPs (and more rops means more interconnection with the memory bus so 192bit, and with it comes with 3GB vram).

Coming from a GTX 660, still id rather get at the Ti or a 970.


----------



## XSI (Jan 23, 2015)

I don't get it. 760-->960 10-15% jump in performance. wth is going on? how can you call it update? better yet read few reviews where 760 beats 960.
its a good card and good product only 2 things bad naming scheme and price.
lets say GTX 950 at 150$ well that would be a hit 
and then 960 @200$ but 192bit 3GB + other stuff 

EDIT: damn this card cost *241 EUR* (~265$)here. (and we have probably lowest salary in EU here *average ~400Eur/month*)


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Jan 23, 2015)

rruff said:


> There are about a dozen reviews on the GTX 960 last I checked, and they prove that what ever specs it has are enough for it's intended performance level and price



Depending on how much time you wanna use it, of course. 

But 2 GB doesn't evoke too much of trust in me for the next, let's say, three years of usage.


----------



## lZKoce (Jan 23, 2015)

XSI said:


> I don't get it. 760-->960 10-15% jump in performance. wth is going on? how can you call it update? better yet read few reviews where 760 beats 960.
> its a good card and good product only 2 things bad naming scheme and price.
> lets say GTX 950 at 150$ well that would be a hit
> and then 960 @200$ but 192bit 3GB + other stuff
> ...



It costs 249 Euro here and I can guarantee you we have to lowest salaries in EU


----------



## The N (Jan 23, 2015)

so TPU review's here.

from benchmarks, i see, 960 is beating 7950 bynot huge difference. infact 760/670/960 are tends to be almost similar card performance wise though different in generations. 960 has better architecture that high Possitive impact on power efficiency. dual 6pin vs single 6pin, no doubt power efficient.

But i am kinda Disappointed with the performnace, may be i was expected little more from it. this card is no way near to 7970/280x, in all bnehcmarks these two High ends beating 960 by good/noticeable margin. And 2 GB VRAM and 128Bit  is kinda discouraging to me, whereas 7950/7970/280x seems old now but still worthy and good competitors from AMD in terms of performance not to mention high power consumption.

What i like the NVIDIA is they are charging people less or much reasonable, performance offer is good to its competitive cards like 760/670 and even more better in power from kepler. this is one of the amazing thing NVIDIA's doing. PRICE wise it is TOP of the line in Mid End GPU or 1080p. just like they did with 970 a HIGH END GPU.

LASTly for the people who have 670/760/7950 and want to upgrade to 960, sorry to say its not a upgrade/update, its just a change of generation with no meaningful impact on performance. just changing of hardware i guess. in this case 970 is best for them.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Jan 23, 2015)

XSI said:


> (and we have probably lowest salary in EU here *average ~400Eur/month*)





lZKoce said:


> It costs 249 Euro here and I can guarantee you we have to lowest salaries in EU



Holy shit. Comparing salaries in Lithuania and Bulgaria! 

Leave the EU, f&&ck it!


----------



## XSI (Jan 23, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Holy shit. Comparing salaries in Lithuania and Bulgaria!
> 
> Leave the EU, f&&ck it!



@Sony Xperia S hm, I don't get your post. I just checked :
"It varies depending on your location and profession. Qualified jobs in Sofia and Varna gob between 400 E and 3000 E. In tourism industry between 500 E and 1000 E. Average, common and low-qualified jobs outside Sofia rarely exceed 200 - 300 E." Its almost identical here in Lithuania so? 
you have a bad day or smthg?  have a good one

P.S. sorry for a little off topic


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 23, 2015)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> Wh... Why?



Because:





The HD 7870 XT (not my 2 x HD 7970s in another PC) is a waste of US$10.22 for me every month, considering the system it's in is running nearly 24/7 at around 50% to 99% GPU usage. I ran the same setup without any discrete GPU and found that the 7870 XT was doing 70 kWh. A GTX 960 would be around 50% more efficient at 24/7 use (and the transcoding software I'm using works better with CUDA than pure OpenCL).


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 23, 2015)

The price for the GTX 960 *will *go down there is no doubt in my mind about that. But until it drops to or under the 200 eur mark, this is a really bad choice performance/dollar wise.

The card is just out, it's got the current price only because retailers want to make an extra buck, it cannot be long before it drops in price.

However, I still think this card is a past-generation offering in many ways.
- 2GB VRAM is a limitation even on 1080p these days.
- The card should have had a GTX 770 performance equivalent and not be royally below that to actually be competitive at its price point.
- The card is underpowered for a x60 position, and not just because the 970 is quite a leap forward. Comparatively/relatively the GTX 660 was a stronger card at time of release, and its release price was around 214 eur instead of 230-240.

Nvidia is hoping to scoop up some nice margins on the early sales ONLY because they tout Maxwell as a small miracle. But the bottom line is, 960 is overpriced, underperforming and I really cannot understand the high mark it's gotten on TPU. It is a world of difference from the 970 release.

As far as the AMD/Nvidia battle goes at this price point, it is completely fair to compare current gen AMD to this 960 even it is nothing more than a rebranded item that MAY get replaced sometime sooner or later in the future. AMD has a crapload of these cards to sell so they will be in the market for quite some time, and by the time they are out of stock/EOL you will find the 960 at a much lower price and with a TI version positioned and released above it. The shocking truth is that Nvidia has nothing competitive at the 960 price point as of now, yet somehow people still think this card is competitive because it has more perf/watt (which is in turn diminished with some OC). Strange...


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 23, 2015)

For me, a GPU has to have 3GB or 4GB of RAM these days.  I will not buy a GPU with less going forward.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 23, 2015)

Cheeseball said:


> The HD 7870 XT is a waste of US$10.22 for me every month, considering the system it's in is running nearly 24/7 at around 50% to 99% GPU usage. I ran the same setup without any discrete GPU and found that the 7870 XT was doing 70 kWh. A GTX 960 would be around 50% more efficient at 24/7 use (and the transcoding software I'm using works better with CUDA than pure OpenCL).


Umm... you went with a gelded 7870 XT (Tahiti LE)?  I suppose we ask first... Why! For 24/7 transcoding software offering CUDA abilities? You could've been putting money in your pocket for like 18 mo's had you gone with a reference 670 back in Nov 2012 for $300.  Your disparagement is no spotlight on AMD.


----------



## rruff (Jan 23, 2015)

Steevo said:


> No, the issue is people see a 1080 $200 card that is new getting its ass whipped by 25% by a 3 year old card from the competitor that is also cheaper.



What would that be? The 960 beats a 280 or 285, and 280x neither beats it by 25% (maybe 15%) nor has the 280x ever been as cheap as the $180 you could buy the 960 for on day one.



RealNeil said:


> For me, a GPU has to have 3GB or 4GB of RAM these days.  I will not buy a GPU with less going forward.



Nothing wrong with that, but you'd also want a faster and more expensive card. Doesn't mean something is wrong with a 960; it performs well for the price and it's very well balanced.. If you simply gave it more ram it would be wasted unless you SLI'd.


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 23, 2015)

rruff said:


> Nothing wrong with that, but you'd also want a faster and more expensive card. Doesn't mean something is wrong with a 960; it performs well for the price and it's very well balanced.. If you simply gave it more ram it would be wasted unless you SLI'd.



SLI works good for me. (Crossfire too)

Considering that resolutions are going up, I think that GPUs will need more memory.


----------



## rruff (Jan 23, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> SLI works good for me. (Crossfire too)Considering that resolutions are going up, I think that GPUs will need more memory.



They also need more processing power. Just increasing the vram doesn't solve the problem unless you like eye candy with low fps. On the 960 this would be especially true because the memory bandwidth is right on the margin as well. 

But that isn't most people. The majority of people who are PC gaming have cards with 1GB of vram and are less than 1/2 the speed of the 960, according to Steam.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 23, 2015)

rruff said:


> You might be interested in this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-8.html


Okay, that's disturbing.  Can someone provide (knowledgeable)feedback for that?  @W1zzard ?  Power spikes like that have to cause harm to the motherboard eventually, doesn't it????


----------



## gamble (Jan 23, 2015)

@W1zzard - I love the performance summary chart for each res.  These are my go to over every other site.  These are invaluable when comparing in a broad range of games and then narrowing it down to the games I play.  Great job on these charts!


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 23, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> Umm... you went with a gelded 7870 XT (Tahiti LE)?  I suppose we ask first... Why! For 24/7 transcoding software offering CUDA abilities? You could've been putting money in your pocket for like 18 mo's had you gone with a reference 670 back in Nov 2012 for $300.  Your disparagement is no spotlight on AMD.



Let me clarify here, the transcoding software that I'm using was primarily built using OpenCL for processing H.264 video in parallel with the CPU (the 965 BE) for faster remote encoding. The developers have recently (last month) implemented CUDA OpenCL Extensions, so now NVIDIA GPUs can get the same job done faster than on normal OpenCL rendering. If I purchase this now (it'll probably get cheaper in a few weeks), it'll primarily be because of the power consumption savings.

Back in 2013, I considered the GTX 670, but it was going for $350 at the time so I got the 7870 XT for $220 (Sapphire) since they have similar average power use and performance.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 23, 2015)

Cheeseball said:


> Let me clarify here, the transcoding software that I'm using was primarily built using OpenCL for processing H.264 video in parallel with the CPU (the 965 BE) for faster remote encoding. The developers have recently (last month) implemented CUDA OpenCL Extensions, so now NVIDIA GPUs can get the same job done faster than on normal OpenCL rendering. If I purchase this now (it'll probably get cheaper in a few weeks), it'll primarily be because of the power consumption savings.
> 
> Back in 2013, I considered the GTX 670, but it was going for $350 at the time so I got the 7870 XT for $220 (Sapphire) since they have similar average power use and performance.


 
That clarifies it, at that time and OpenCL, I might have held to a Pitcairn XT as I would perhaps consider the OpenCL/watts so much improved even if it slowed the work slightly... IDK.  But now given the CUDA Extensions are there, diffinantly it's time to move on.


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 23, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> ..., I might have held to a *Tahiti LE* as I would perhaps consider...



FTFY.

This is really meant to be a slight (assuming 10% to 15%) upgrade from the 7870 XT considering that the GTX 960 does match the the HD 7970 in the majority of the benchmarks at what seems to be 50+% less power usage. Since I may able to get one that is priced as close to the MSRP of $200 (not at $230+ that some of the other people are unfortunately seeing), it's more likely worth it at that price.

I'll still keep the 7870 XT though or maybe try to triple-CrossFire it with the HD 7970s in my home PC. LOL.


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 23, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> To me, this GTX 960 is a card from the low-mid levels of the market, and 2 GB, for a videocard meant to be sold in 2015, is not enough.
> It is more like a GTX 950 Ti at best.
> 
> 
> They need now 960 Ti, 970 SE, etc to fill this gigantic hole in performance.



I have to agree with you on that one. Like you said, a GTX 960 Ti... with around 1280 - 1344 Cuda cores, a 192bit memory bus & a 3GB frame buffer would of been the sweet spot.


----------



## rruff (Jan 23, 2015)

Lionheart said:


> Like you said, a GTX 960 Ti... with around 1280 - 1344 Cuda cores, a 192bit memory bus & a 3GB frame buffer would of been the sweet spot.



Been hearing that the GM206 is full at 1024, so a Ti would then need to be a further reduced GM204. So probably higher spec and closer to the 970, but who knows.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 23, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> *at that time* and OpenCL, I might have held to a Pitcairn XT...


In other words instead of the *Tahiti LE...* as W1zzard showed Pitcairn XT best'd it 44% (higher) in perf/w.  Today a reference/$200 960 is almost no brainer for such 24/7 activity/work.


----------



## xvi (Jan 24, 2015)

Another excellent review, Wiz.

I've heard a lot of talk that 2GB of vram is more than good for anything at 1080p, but will that hold true in the not too distant future? With the cost of higher resolution monitors coming down, it seems like this card might quickly become insufficient.


----------



## rruff (Jan 24, 2015)

xvi said:


> I've heard a lot of talk that 2GB of vram is more than good for anything at 1080p, but will that hold true in the not too distant future?



If it becomes insufficient, I don't think it will be because of the vram alone, but rather a general lack of horsepower. Currently the 960 seems to do well enough at 1440p in most games, but if you want future proofing and better quality settings I'd suggest a better card... like a R9 290 or GTX 970.


----------



## Jeffredo (Jan 24, 2015)

There will be 4GB versions in short order unless a Ti version comes out with 3GB and 192 bit in the mid $200s.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2015)

rruff said:


> Nothing wrong with that, but you'd also want a faster and more expensive card. Doesn't mean something is wrong with a 960; it performs well for the price and it's very well balanced.. If you simply gave it more ram it would be wasted unless you SLI'd.



Personlly, I think this is a perfect stepping stone card _if _it had 3GB+. Buy one for 1080p now, then add a second for cheap when you grab a $150 1440p monitor.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jan 27, 2015)

I am pretty sure this is the best performing card for anyone with a PSU of 500W or less.  It lands between an R9 280 and an R9 280X in performance, and it's much quieter with less heat output (part of the power thing).

Comparison to R9 290 is really ridiculous.  R9 290 really needs 600W+ PSU, and well..  I don't like noisy GPUs - like the R9 28X and 29X cards  in the link below.  And, the 290 if you go with the absolute cheapest you can find in the states (with a Mail in rebate) is $250.  Most of the cards are $270+ and this suddenly becomes $300-$350 if you have to buy a new PSU. 

960 is $200 without MIR.   If it falls to say $180 or $175, it will be a real no-brainer for many many midrange gaming rigs.   Personally I wouldn't sweat the $25 though.

The sounds of various cards :

https://www.youtube.com/user/rasamaha2000/videos


----------



## rruff (Jan 27, 2015)

I've seen 290s as cheap as $200, and last week a couple were $225. A 280 was $145 last week. Power efficiency, heat, and noise are just a few of the reasons why AMD cards must sell at a lower $/FPS to stay in business. 

The 960 is a good competitor for the 280 and 285. Nvidia didn't repeat what they did with the 970 by undercutting the price of the AMD cards, and it makes sense that they wouldn't. It will sell well enough where it is.


----------



## SNM (Jan 27, 2015)

I have brought MSI R9 270x Gaming 2 gigs around a month ago, while I was suggested to wait for another month for this awesome card (GTX 960), but I think my 270x  (around 16% less than GTX 960) is good enough, however I would switch for a 960Ti may be.
Another issue I haven't seen any shop or online provider enlisting 960 any where in India.


----------



## Caring1 (Jan 27, 2015)

SNM said:


> Another issue I haven't seen any shop or online provider enlisting 960 any where in India.


http://www.snapdeal.com/products/computers-graphic-cards/?sort=plrty&#plrty|bcrumbSearch:gtx 960|ChipsetManufacturer_s:NVIDIA|

Zotac shows two listed. just search for the gtx 960


----------



## NTM2003 (Feb 2, 2015)

so this only takes 150 watts so i can run this on this psu it does have a 6 pin for a GPU.?


----------



## gamble (Feb 2, 2015)

If my math is correct, you need 225 watts dedicated per Asus website.  Divide that by 12, you are looking at 18.75amps.  It might work if you have it on its own rail from 12Vb.  Others might know more...

Its an 8pin on the card.


----------



## NTM2003 (Feb 2, 2015)

no its a 6 pin on this card from the pics


----------



## gamble (Feb 2, 2015)

crap man I thought this was for 970, I own the 970, wrong thread sorry... ignore all my posts.


----------



## NTM2003 (Feb 2, 2015)

according to the pics in the reviews its a 6 pin if your in a different country then it prob is a 8 pin, unless your talking about the 970 or 980


----------



## gamble (Feb 2, 2015)

Ok for 960, Asus says 150w divide by 12 = 12.5amps needed, sorry for the mix up from the 970!


----------



## NTM2003 (Feb 2, 2015)

so i am guessing my psu can handle it the MSI GTX 960 says 150 watts to, i just hope its a good GPU from some of the reviews a lot say they stopped working after a day.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Apr 13, 2015)

Why isn't the GTX 750 Ti in the comparison charts?  The HD 7770 is, why not the GTX 750 Ti?  This GPU is the next product up from the GTX 750 Ti in Nvidia's current lineup.


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 13, 2015)

Thanks for the review. It was a good read. 
On one of my PCs, I'm one of those few that game on 3840x2160 resolution. (28")
That PC's two R9-280X OC GPUs do a decent job of rendering games that are turning out to be pretty smooth. Playing a shooter at that resolution is a lot of fun.

My other two gaming PCs run on 27" screens @ 1920x1080 resolution. I have good GPUs in them, and my result is smoother at those resolutions.
I can see using this 960 in my M-ITX build where a single card is all I can use, but I already have a Sapphire R9-280X Toxic in there and it's probably better.
While this is a good GPU, it's not for me.

I can't wait for the new AMD 390X cards to surface. _That's_ what I'm thinking about after reviews by qualified websites expose any warts they might have.
A GTX-980Ti with more RAM than 4GB would be even better.


----------



## Footman (Apr 21, 2015)

I think the GTX 960 will be an ideal upgrade for my sons PC. He games at 1080 with a gtx 750Ti currently.

He wants the Witcher 3 and min requirements ask for a GTX660. 

Not a bad upgrade when I factor in the fact that I can get a free copy of the game for my son when I buy the GTX 960.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Apr 21, 2015)

Footman said:


> I think the GTX 960 will be an ideal upgrade for my sons PC. He games at 1080 with a gtx 750Ti currently.
> 
> He wants the Witcher 3 and min requirements ask for a GTX660.
> 
> Not a bad upgrade when I factor in the fact that I can get a free copy of the game for my son when I buy the GTX 960.


I don't think moving from a $150 GPU to a $200 GPU makes much sense.  I'd wait until the 970 is available for ~$250. (might actually be called the 660 960 Ti by then)


----------



## krusha03 (Apr 21, 2015)

thebluebumblebee said:


> I don't think moving from a $150 GPU to a $200 GPU makes much sense.  I'd wait until the 970 is available for ~$250. (might actually be called the 660 Ti by then)


It's still 40% performance increase


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Apr 21, 2015)

Although it uses a lot more power(100 watts), you can get a XFX Double Dissipation R9-290A-EDFD Radeon R9 290 4GB for $239 after MIR.


----------



## rruff (Apr 22, 2015)

krusha03 said:


> It's still 40% performance increase



Comparing the non OC models I make that a 68% performance increase for the 960 vs 750 Ti.  92/((96/105)*60)= 1.68. Not a bad upgrade.

Just saw that Witcher 3 pre-order codes are selling for $20-25 on ebay, so you can get a little cash if you don't want the game.


----------



## Maya2009 (Jun 7, 2015)

I always like your reviews @W1zzard.
I've SLI of 660 and i loved that you mostly include single 660 performance in chart that gives me the idea that i can rely on my card till you next GPU reviews


----------



## gasolin (May 13, 2016)

gtx 980/980 ti, sold needed a temporary gpu,  asus gtx 960 strix 4gb is fine, it's perfomance is better then the hd 7950 (have seen a hd 7870 from club 3d play batman on 6 monitor, i think it's full hd monitors) and as good as the gtx 680(have use 2xgtx 680 4gb in 5760x1080 more then i use now), know asus gtx 980 is 30 db loud under load, asus gtx 960 strix is only 27 db loud, surprised who silent it is and only uses the fans at a very high temps (way beyond 60 degress) idle temps on a hot day is very good, dirt 3 complete edition benchmark with setting on high (geforce experience wouldn't work) 3440x1440 100hz benchmark was up there at 100fps.

Thought how did that happen i just changed settings to high, although im gonna keep looking out for 1080,1070 benchmarks i was so happily surprised i ordere a second one, good temps,very low noise,low power consumption, one card is as  good as a gtx 680 and better then a hd 7870 i have seen run a batman on 6 monitor´s 









I just play on settings according to my monitors native resolution and hz (oh acer predator x34 with g sync), why second card, low temps,very low noise, no noise above 60 degress also because i want to sli again (get more experience) and for more demanding titles in 3440x1440 i can more easy get above 60 fps, games that are extreme i can paly on my dell U2515H

Mostly play racing games, i am how ever gonna get me bf 1 when it's out

I did watch some gtx 960 4k videos (not resolution of the video but the actual game) and some where to my surpise okay even considering that 4k atm max out at 60hz


----------

