• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

ASUS GTX 960 STRIX OC 2 GB

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

SLI works good for me. (Crossfire too)

Considering that resolutions are going up, I think that GPUs will need more memory.
 
RealNeil said:
SLI works good for me. (Crossfire too)Considering that resolutions are going up, I think that GPUs will need more memory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
@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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Casecutter said:
..., I might have held to a Tahiti LE as I would perhaps consider...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :toast:
 
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. :toast:
Click to expand...

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 said:
at that time and OpenCL, I might have held to a Pitcairn XT...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xvi
There will be 4GB versions in short order unless a Ti version comes out with 3GB and 192 bit in the mid $200s.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
so this only takes 150 watts so i can run this on this psu it does have a 6 pin for a GPU.?
IMG_0937.JPG
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
no its a 6 pin on this card from the pics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top