Need to replace 660gtx

zauber · Jul 28, 2015

I tried to squeeze a couple of rounds of world of tanks in between a 5 mile run and a shower, some sweat dripped off my arm onto the mesh top of my desktop case ... it dripped onto the back of my video card which apparently fried something. Card fans work and power light is on but no signal is passed through either dvi port.

PC is an i7 2600k, 16 gb ram, display is a 24" benq 1900 x 1200 monitor. This monitor has had edid issues in the past with some ATI cards, so i guess i am limited to nvidia.

GTX 960 or GTX 970?

Quix · Jul 28, 2015

I'd get a 970, the 960 isn't a big enough upgrade to really be worth it.

rabidz7 · Jul 28, 2015

I'd go for the 970. The 960 is really slow.

defaultluser · Jul 28, 2015

GTX 970 is your best bet. The 960 is only a small improvement.

But if you can't afford $330, the GTX 960 IS a bit faster than your 660 Ti, and the 2GB models are quite a good value right now:

$170 for PNY
$190 + $20 MIR for MSI
$185 + $10 MIR for EVGA

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._t=101&pf_rd_p=2102772462&pf_rd_i=10779868011

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._t=101&pf_rd_p=2102772462&pf_rd_i=10779868011

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...3&cm_re=nvidia_gtx_960-_-14-487-093-_-Product

Also, there's none of that nutso 192-bit bus crap like you had with the "1.5GB " 660 Ti cards, so you do get to use the entire 2GB ram.

And you don't see much benefit from 4GB versus 2GB at 1080p:

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/312w8l/we_benchmarked_the_new_4gb_gtx_960_video_cards_vs/

But again if you have the money, splurge on the 970

DooKey · Jul 28, 2015

Treat yourself to a real upgrade and buy the 970.

misterbobby · Jul 28, 2015

Yeah go 970. A 960 is hardly any faster than what you have now and 2 gb does not cut it. And a 4gb 960 is getting pretty close to 970 price range but the 970 is on a whole other level of performance being nearly 60% faster. A 970 is really the minimum card needed for modern demanding games at 1920.

defaultluser · Jul 28, 2015

misterbobby said:
Yeah go 970. A 960 is hardly any faster than what you have now and 2 gb does not cut it. And a 4gb 960 is getting pretty close to 970 price range but the 970 is on a whole other level of performance being nearly 60% faster. A 970 is really the minimum card needed for modern demanding games at 1920.

I posted an article where the 2GB and 4GB show no performance difference at 1080p, but you STILL insist that there's a difference. Shall I post EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK RESULT FROM THE ARTICLE?

THESE ARE ALL AT ULTRA SETTINGS!

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2

Note: there is a 4% clock speed advantage on the 4GB graphics card, so unless the difference is at least 10%, it's not significant.

Tell me, where on these benchmarks can I find a case where 4GB makes a difference at 1080p?

Tell me, where in these benchmarks was I unable to run these games comfortably at 1080p Ultra?

Once again, unless you are gaming at 1440p or higher, 2GB ram is not a limiting factor. And outside of your imaginary universe, you can game quite comfortably at 1080p on a $170 2GB graphics card. I know, so fucking hard to believe!

Yes, you will get a less life out of your GTX 960, but you will also have an extra $130 to spend on whatever you like. It's actually a good thing, if you're the type who like an excuse to upgrade more often for fun

misterbobby · Jul 28, 2015

defaultluser said:
I posted an article where the 2GB and 4GB show no performance difference at 1080p, but you STILL insist that there's a difference. Shall I post EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK RESULT FROM THE ARTICLE?

THESE ARE ALL AT ULTRA SETTINGS!

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2

Note: there is a 4% clock speed advantage on the 4GB graphics card, so unless the difference is at least 10%, it's not significant.

http://i.imgur.com/SBW1C4N.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/G3wPDd7.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/DJd4NPJ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/nWFXBDe.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Twucnt0.jpg

Tell me, where on these benchmarks can I find a case where 4GB makes a difference at 1080p?

Tell me, where in these benchmarks was I unable to run these games comfortably at 1080p Ultra?

Once again, unless you are gaming at 1440p or higher, 2GB ram is not a limiting factor. And outside of your imaginary universe, you can game quite comfortably at 1080p on a $170 2GB graphics card. I know, so fucking hard to believe!

Yes, you will get a less life out of your GTX 960, but you will also have an extra $130 to spend on whatever you like. It's actually a good thing, if you're the type who like an excuse to upgrade more often for fun [/size]

Get over yourself.

You can only run low textures in Batman Arkham Knight with 2 GB. Games are only going to use more vram in the future and we dont know what settings and resolution he will like to run down the road.

And the point that you did not see because you were hell bent on your rant and took what I said out of context was that a 960 is not all that fast to begin with and that the 970 is what he should go with.

aznever · Jul 28, 2015

go with a gtx 960, that way you can upgrade sooner. Probably by next year?

Araxie · Jul 28, 2015

defaultluser said:
I posted an article where the 2GB and 4GB show no performance difference at 1080p, but you STILL insist that there's a difference. Shall I post EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK RESULT FROM THE ARTICLE?

THESE ARE ALL AT ULTRA SETTINGS!

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2

Note: there is a 4% clock speed advantage on the 4GB graphics card, so unless the difference is at least 10%, it's not significant.

Tell me, where on these benchmarks can I find a case where 4GB makes a difference at 1080p?

Tell me, where in these benchmarks was I unable to run these games comfortably at 1080p Ultra?

Once again, unless you are gaming at 1440p or higher, 2GB ram is not a limiting factor. And outside of your imaginary universe, you can game quite comfortably at 1080p on a $170 2GB graphics card. I know, so fucking hard to believe!

Yes, you will get a less life out of your GTX 960, but you will also have an extra $130 to spend on whatever you like. It's actually a good thing, if you're the type who like an excuse to upgrade more often for fun

framerate are there sure, but what about frame time?.. that's something that you not see in benchmark.. the texture swapping can be certainly BAD in 2GB cards. and produce insane amount of stutter that for sure isn't present in those charts and its the main reason why you see similar averages but lower minimums, and lower spikes in the 2GB card.. if you really want to take something in consideration forget average FPS and just aim for minimums that will tell a bigger picture and landscape about a GB Wall.. frametimes can be horrible certainly pure crap when a card it's constantly swapping textures and again you will not see it in a AVG framerate chart.

misterbobby · Jul 28, 2015

defaultluser said:
Did any of you read my fucking post?

1 I still recommended the gtx 970 if he could afford it. The untimely loss of a still capable graphics card might require some budgeting.

2 all the fucking graphs in my post above except hardline have 1 percent and 0.1 percent minimum frame rates. Last time I checked, THAT'S MINIMUM FRAME TIME. At 1080p there is no noticeable difference in frame time

LOOK AT THE BLUE AND RED GRAPHS, UNLESS YOU'RE FUCKING COLORBLIND?

And did you read where nearly everyone has said for him to get the 970? Taking my part about the 2 GB out of context is irrelevant when its all said and done.

Criticalhitkoala · Jul 28, 2015

I like the 960 strix we have. I mostly play Smite so there hasn't really been a difference seeing my girlfriends 960 strix compared to my 980ti and 980 in the respective rigs.

I had a 970. I think that's your smartest perfomance upgrade. I think the 960 is your best "oops I fucked up, it's gonna cost me. But I hope not cost me $250+" upgrade

Stoly · Jul 28, 2015

Dude, chill out.

The 960 just doesn't have the horsepower to take advantage of 4gb. The 970 may be $100 more but its well worth it.

fanboy · Jul 28, 2015

To bad your bias to Nvidia as AMD had some options cheaper then the 970 as newegg had a 290x on sale for $259 recent.

misterbobby · Jul 28, 2015

fanboy said:
To bad your bias to Nvidia as AMD had some options cheaper then the 970 as newegg had a 290x on sale for $259 recent.

A 970 can be had for just 20 bucks more there and comes with a decent game.

primetime · Jul 28, 2015

This monitor has had edid issues in the past with some ATI cards, so i guess i am limited to nvidia.

What's the story with edid issues? thats a new one to me

supermodelthriller · Jul 30, 2015

A 290/290x for $210-$260 is certainly a much better performance value than the infamous VRAM debacled 970, which under-performs while costing $50-$100 more than the aforementioned.
Add the 390/390x to the mix, which is price competitive and now doubles the VRAM of the 970, it's game over.

its4thecolony · Jul 30, 2015

You can probably find a great deal on a used GTX 970 or a 290x, I feel like getting a used 390x would be pretty dope, if you can get a good deal.

Criticalhitkoala · Jul 30, 2015

supermodelthriller said:
A 290/290x for $210-$260 is certainly a much better performance value than the infamous VRAM debacled 970, which under-performs while costing $50-$100 more than the aforementioned.
Add the 390/390x to the mix, which is price competitive and now doubles the VRAM of the 970, it's game over.

Your post sounded like someone who has only read about the card on ATI fansites and not owned it.

The 970 is not under performing as you mentioned.

While I wouldn't say it's always better than the 290/290x, there's a reason why the 970 is considered a very smart buy by a lot of reviewers and people who actually own the card.

Then again you may just be trolling for the sake of trolling since the account was created relatively recently.

zauber · Aug 2, 2015

I bought this card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127845

for $180 after rebate (it is higher now). Could not find a 970 under $300 at the time. The GTX 660 was adequate at 1900 x 1200, so the the 960 should be fine for the games i will be playing for the foreseeable feature.

n=1 · Aug 2, 2015

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150678&cm_re=280x-_-14-150-678-_-Product

This would've been a better buy at $180 tbh, unless you play a lot of Wolfenstein or Project Cars. Too bad about the issues with ATi cards with your monitor though.

blank · Aug 2, 2015

defaultluser said:
I posted an article where the 2GB and 4GB show no performance difference at 1080p, but you STILL insist that there's a difference. Shall I post EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK RESULT FROM THE ARTICLE?

THESE ARE ALL AT ULTRA SETTINGS!

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1888-evga-supersc-4gb-960-benchmark-vs-2gb/Page-2

Note: there is a 4% clock speed advantage on the 4GB graphics card, so unless the difference is at least 10%, it's not significant.

Tell me, where on these benchmarks can I find a case where 4GB makes a difference at 1080p?

Tell me, where in these benchmarks was I unable to run these games comfortably at 1080p Ultra?

Once again, unless you are gaming at 1440p or higher, 2GB ram is not a limiting factor. And outside of your imaginary universe, you can game quite comfortably at 1080p on a $170 2GB graphics card. I know, so fucking hard to believe!

Yes, you will get a less life out of your GTX 960, but you will also have an extra $130 to spend on whatever you like. It's actually a good thing, if you're the type who like an excuse to upgrade more often for fun

Something tells me you really want people to read what you wrote. Maybe a larger size= will work?

Need to replace 660gtx

n00b

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]F Junkie

[H]F Junkie

2[H]4U

[H]F Junkie

2[H]4U

Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]ard|Gawd

2[H]4U

Supreme [H]ardness

n00b

Weaksauce

[H]ard|Gawd

n00b

2[H]4U

2[H]4U