GIGABYTE GTX 960 G1 GAMING Video Card Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,630
GIGABYTE GTX 960 G1 GAMING Video Card Review - GIGABYTE has delivered one of the fastest factory overclocked GeForce GTX 960 cards on the market, the GIGABYTE GTX 960 G1 GAMING. This video card holds great value at $209, pricing it against the MSI R9 285 GAMING video card. We will also compare each video cards max overclock, and compare a R9 280X to find the best value.
 
I don't mind reviews of other models of GTX 960 (even though they don't add much new infoirmation), but why not one of the new 4GB cards that have been available at retail for a few weeks now?? Would be nice for someone to actually test for some sort of improvement.
 
defaultluser said:
I don't mind reviews of other models of GTX 960 (even though they don't add much new infoirmation), but why not one of the new 4GB cards that have been available at retail for a few weeks now?? Would be nice for someone to actually test for some sort of improvement.
Click to expand...

Was just about to pose the same question:confused:
 
defaultluser said:
I don't mind reviews of other models of GTX 960 (even though they don't add much new infoirmation), but why not one of the new 4GB cards that have been available at retail for a few weeks now?? Would be nice for someone to actually test for some sort of improvement.
Click to expand...

Yea, not much out there. I bought the EVGA SSC 4gb version anyway. I can peg it at 1500mhz/7500mhz without effort. So far, it has performed well.
 
i just can't see myself buying a 960. it's just going to get out dated too quickly. I'm waiting for the new AMD cards to come out. I'm hoping they are keeping up better then their cpu line up.
 
At this point I think he didn't even tested the 280X and just throw some old data to the review and just: "We're not just looking for which is faster, but which feels and performs better" (DUH:eek:).. a clearly biased review..
 
Araxie said:
At this point I think he didn't even tested the 280X and just throw some old data to the review and just: "We're not just looking for which is faster, but which feels and performs better" (DUH:eek:).. a clearly biased review..
Click to expand...

For people who play benchmarks..you are correct, [H] reviews are worthless.
 
defaultluser said:
I don't mind reviews of other models of GTX 960 (even though they don't add much new infoirmation), but why not one of the new 4GB cards that have been available at retail for a few weeks now?? Would be nice for someone to actually test for some sort of improvement.
Click to expand...

I agree, I will request some 4GB models to get in for review :)
 
Matas said:
The question is how G1 is faster than 280X at 1920p SMAA/Ultra, when the first one should be out of vRAM?
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/07/far_cry_4_video_card_performance_review/7#.VSOOZY6W5PE
Or HBAO+, SS and Enhanced Godrays take their dosage above 3 GB?
Click to expand...

I agree. this is a plain trash review. In farcry 4 where they knew the GTX 960 will get whipped they choose some ridiculous settings at which all cards are below 30 fps. btw these are the same guys who talk about playable settings in every page of their review. pathetic.

R9 280X crushes the GTX 960 in the real world. 15 - 20% faster. And to top it off they said R9 280X does not have good OC headroom. Tahiti was a overclocking beast. 1125 - 1150 mhz was average. 1200 Mhz on air was not uncommon. come on guys. If you are going to pimp Nvidia stuff atleast be discreet. don't be so obvious :p

Want real reviews of R9 280X vs GTX 960

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-GTX-960-Grafikkarte-259742/Specials/Test-Review-1148357/2/

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-01/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-im-test/3/
 
spintroniX said:
i think he's referring to the apples to apples comparisons, bottom chart of the respective review pages.

the MSI card averages 37.4 with a min of 29 and the gigabyte card averages 28 with a minimum of 19.

1920 x 1080- SMAA - ultra - enhanced godrays - hbao+
Click to expand...

Ditto, I've gone back and looked after the first 960 review and there are a lot of questions on framerates, I don't get why they are so different. VERY similar clocks, (in the one above it was actually higher than this review) same OS, same cards. I can see a few frames different but these are way off, there has to be something going on in the background or length of time captured, I don't know. Different reviewers?
 
Matas said:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...60_g1_gaming_video_card_review/5#.VSLWfuG2Xck

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...x_960_gaming_video_card_review/4#.VSLWYeG2Xck

Results in FC4 differ a lot.. And these are not higher G1 clocks... Very wierd...
Click to expand...

Both of these reviews were taken at different times, with very different game patches and driver versions.

FC4 has been under constant patch updates, which HAVE changed performance in the game on certain features.

The first graph you are showing is under patch 1.7.0 of FC4 using NVIDIA supplied GeForce 347.25 drivers on video card launch.

The second graph you are showing is under patch 1.9.0 of FC4 (2 patches later) using NVIDIA driver 347.88 WHQL released just last month, and are the most recent drivers and game patch available.

We have noted before that patch 1.8.0 drastically changes Soft Shadows performance in FC4. Basically put, Soft Shadows performance is dramatically reduced in patch 1.8.0 because Soft Shadows got a major visual overhaul in patch 1.8.0 of FC4 which makes them look much better. This visual upgrade, translates into a performance downgrade.

This decrease in Soft Shadow performance alone counts for the drop in performance between patch 1.7.0 and patch 1.9.0 of FC4. Therefore, in the latest graph here in this review, using the latest patch of the game, it is showing current performance as it is right now.

Be cautious to compare versions of games, as patches come out, it can and does change performance. I cannot load up a previous version of the game to show you the comparison, but I personally experienced when testing Soft Shadows that when patch 1.8.0 came out, performance dropped a lot in the game in relation to Soft Shadows. We have made note of this in past reviews when patch 1.8.0 was released in FC4.

Here for example, in this review, we noted the Soft Shadows performance drop from patch 1.8.0 - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/03/asus_rog_poseidon_gtx_980_platinum_video_card_review/7
 
Last edited:
And that my friends is why we RE-TEST when we have new patches and drivers released. Many review sites do not do this and it is misleading to its readers.
 
Araxie said:
At this point I think he didn't even tested the 280X and just throw some old data to the review and just: "We're not just looking for which is faster, but which feels and performs better" (DUH:eek:).. a clearly biased review..
Click to expand...

You would be incorrect then, we had no 280X data to which to pull from. All the results shown in this review are fresh, current, up-to-date results using the latest drivers and game patches.
 
Matas said:
The question is how G1 is faster than 280X at 1920p SMAA/Ultra, when the first one should be out of vRAM?
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/07/far_cry_4_video_card_performance_review/7#.VSOOZY6W5PE
Or HBAO+, SS and Enhanced Godrays take their dosage above 3 GB?
Click to expand...

You cannot compare that ap2ap graph with the ap2ap graph in this review because Soft Shadows is not enabled in the first graph. The settings are not ap2ap between the two graphs. Also, this review you linked has an even earlier version of FC4, version 1.6.0, which definitely does not have the change to Soft Shadows which patch 1.8.0 introduced, again, different game versions, different driver versions.
 
Mugato said:
The BF4 results were the ones that threw me, take a look.
Click to expand...


Again, if you could be more specific with what exactly you are seeing, we could address your questions and thoughts.
 
Just noted a minor discrepancy:

1428264444Z0kUPoohkW_4_3.jpg


Everything is set to the highest level setting. Shadow Map Size is set to "High"
Click to expand...

I assume it should be "Very high" instead of "High" in the quoted text.

EDIT:
Apples-to-Apples High Settings

1428264444Z0kUPoohkW_7_2.jpg
Click to expand...

I think the heading should say "Apples-to-Apples Ultra Settings".


And lastly, the name of the Crysis 3 map is spelled "Safties off" on the screen, I should probably be "Safeties off".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top