MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 4G Video Card Review @ [H]

B

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 4G Video Card Review - Today we are examining the MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 4G model, which features a custom build from MSI with the Twin Frozr V thermal design. We will compare the MSI GTX 960 4G to the XFX R9 380 4G, including the highest obtained overclock. Additionally we will examine the GTX 960 2GB and 4GB models clock-for-clock.
 
Last edited:
This card is no man's land. A 970 can be had for only 60-70 bucks more and is in a whole other league being about 60% faster. 960 4 GB cards should be 200 bucks tops.
 
As much as I like the GTX960, specially when OC, I think the 970 or 390 are well worth the extra cost.

You can't max any modern game with the 960 or 380x at 1080p even with 4gb.

I think its best to look for a deal on a R9 290 for about $260
 
Stoly said:
As much as I like the GTX960, specially when OC, I think the 970 or 390 are well worth the extra cost.
You can't max any modern game with the 960 or 380x at 1080p even with 4gb.
Click to expand...
You can't max out games with a 970 at 1080p either, if you plan on keeping a minimum of 60 FPS. (which you should)
The reason I switched from a 970 to a 960 was due to the VRAM situaiton (stuttering in games) and because the 960 is the only GPU on the market today with hardware accelerated UHD video decoding.
I went with a 4GB 960 because that extra VRAM matters when games need more than 2GB, as shown in the Dying Light tests.
 
Thanks for this review guys!

I agree that the 4GB card doesn't justify it's extra cost for just one game. On the flip side, this means that the 2GB version is an incredible value :D

Yeah, I really think you should have given SILVER award to both these cards you reviewed: great, except for the $45 premium they charge you for 2GB extra ram (and little performance improvement).
 
The price for this particular card is too steep. The GTX 960 4gb needs to be around $220. On a side note, it's crazy that the 28nm GM206 @ 2.94 billion transistors and 227 mm2 die size can go toe-to-toe on performance with AMD's 28nm Tonga @ 5 billion transistors and 359 mm2 die size. The power draw difference further illustrates how bad AMD is being out-engineered right now.
 
Brent.. Did you know Sapphire was selling there Tri X 290X New Edition card last week for $259 with clock speeds of 1020/1350 ??

$20buxs buys a lot more performance .
 
misterbobby said:
And? The point was that from a consumer's standpoint, it makes way more sense to get a 970 for only 70 bucks more.
Click to expand...

You act like $70 isn't a lot of extra money. If someone is only spending $240 on a card there is probably a good reason why they can't spend another $70 on a 970.
 
Derangel said:
You act like $70 isn't a lot of extra money. If someone is only spending $240 on a card there is probably a good reason why they can't spend another $70 on a 970.
Click to expand...
Please look at 60-70 bucks in the exact context. Going from 240 to 300 bucks or so is NOT a lot of money when you can get 60% more performance. Plus in the end the 970 can be kept for MUCH longer than the 960 which already struggles on higher settings in some current games. Anyway I know logic is not something most people use so I will just shut up now...
 
misterbobby said:
Please look at 60-70 bucks in the exact context. Going from 240 to 300 bucks or so is NOT a lot of money when you can get 60% more performance. Plus in the end the 970 can be kept for MUCH longer than the 960 which already struggles on higher settings in some current games. Anyway I know logic is not something most people use so I will just shut up now...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you've never had to do a build on a very tight budget or been in a situation where $70 would be a lot of extra money.
 
Derangel said:
I'm guessing you've never had to do a build on a very tight budget or been in a situation where $70 would be a lot of extra money.
Click to expand...
I look at OVERALL costs and value. If I can get a card for just 25% more money that performs 60% better and will keep me from having to upgrade as soon then it is just common sense to do that. If 60-70 bucks will truly break the bank for someone then they have bigger issues to worry about then buying a video card.
 
misterbobby said:
I look at OVERALL costs and value. If I can get a card for just 25% more money that performs 60% better and will keep me from having to upgrade as soon then it is just common sense to do that. If 60-70 bucks will truly break the bank for someone then they have bigger issues to worry about then buying a video card.
Click to expand...

Yep you clearly have no idea what it's like to be in that situation.
 
zone74 said:
the 960 is the only GPU on the market today with hardware accelerated UHD video decoding.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, interesting. Also, with better power efficiency and overclocking potential, I think those three factors should make choosing the 960 over the 380 an easy choice. Oh, and the free game for however long that lasts.......
 
I'm with misterbobby, even a 15 years old kid can just ask for 70$ to the parents if money its a really issue.. this card its just worthless if it's already struggling at 1080P.
 
misterbobby said:
I look at OVERALL costs and value. If I can get a card for just 25% more money that performs 60% better and will keep me from having to upgrade as soon then it is just common sense to do that. If 60-70 bucks will truly break the bank for someone then they have bigger issues to worry about then buying a video card.
Click to expand...

But you're comparing the 4GB model when making that comparison.

You really should be comparing the 2GB model, which makes the price difference $125!

Now that's a little harder to justify.
 
defaultluser said:
But you're comparing the 4GB model when making that comparison.

You really should be comparing the 2GB model, which makes the price difference $125!

Now that's a little harder to justify.
Click to expand...
Lol I swear some of you will twist any and everything. This thread is about the MSI GTX 960 4GB that costs 240 bucks not some random 2 GB model. AGAIN if you are going to spend that much then go with the 970 which is a vastly superior card you can keep for a few years.
 
Derangel said:
Yep you clearly have no idea what it's like to be in that situation.
Click to expand...
Saving what is a minuscule amount of money in the long run to have a hugely inferior product defies common sense. And you have really saved almost nothing when you have to upgrade a year sooner and the 960 4 GB has lost so much of its value.
 
misterbobby said:
Saving what is a minuscule amount of money in the long run to have a hugely inferior product defies common sense. And you have really saved almost nothing when you have to upgrade a year sooner and the 960 4 GB has lost so much of its value.
Click to expand...

There are people who do $200-$250 gpu upgrades every couple of years and are fine lowering settings. The 970 is the better card if someone can afford it, but it all depends on the person and the situation. That said, if someone couldn't afford the extra $70 I'd tell them to save $40 and get the 2GB version of the 960 since the 4GB version really isn't worth it.
 
Great article. If I had one nit-pick it would be that I think you should have highlighted the reduced power requirement of the 960 in your conclusion. Being well below the 300W mark means that even PCs with meagre PSUs can run this card.
 
Derangel said:
You act like $70 isn't a lot of extra money. If someone is only spending $240 on a card there is probably a good reason why they can't spend another $70 on a 970.
Click to expand...

When you're buying two cards because of twin builds, that 70 USD just became 140 USD...
 
Since this review came so closely on the heels of the 380 review (thank you, btw), I have to ask the question.

Why is it that the memory in the 9XX series seems to be of so much higher quality than anything AMD is using? The *base* memory clock on this card is almost 400 MHz higher than the max overclock for the 380. Does XFX buy their memory from a different vendor than MSI? Is it a driver/bios limitation between nVidia and AMD?

I ask because this now seems to be the correct time to do so. This is the "new" refresh from AMD, official spec and handling for the product and all that.
 
jbc029 said:
Since this review came so closely on the heels of the 380 review (thank you, btw), I have to ask the question.

Why is it that the memory in the 9XX series seems to be of so much higher quality than anything AMD is using? The *base* memory clock on this card is almost 400 MHz higher than the max overclock for the 380. Does XFX buy their memory from a different vendor than MSI? Is it a driver/bios limitation between nVidia and AMD?

I ask because this now seems to be the correct time to do so. This is the "new" refresh from AMD, official spec and handling for the product and all that.
Click to expand...


The 960 is 128 bit memory with a bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s. The 380 is 256 bit memory with a bandwidth of 182.4 GB/s.
The 980 is 256 bit memory with a bandwidth of 224.3 GB/s. The 290 is 512 bit memory with a bandwidth of 320 GB/s.
The 980 TI and Titan X have 384 bit memory with a bandwidth of 336.5 GB/s.
The 390 has a bandwidth of 384 GB/s and the Fury has 4096 bit memory with a bandwidth of 512 GB/s.

AMD has had faster memory and more shaders for the last few generations but their slower GPU core clocks are what are really hurting them.
 
Nuby1Canuby said:
The 960 is 128 bit memory with a bandwidth of 112.2 GB/s. The 380 is 256 bit memory with a bandwidth of 182.4 GB/s.
The 980 is 256 bit memory with a bandwidth of 224.3 GB/s. The 290 is 512 bit memory with a bandwidth of 320 GB/s.
The 980 TI and Titan X have 384 bit memory with a bandwidth of 336.5 GB/s.
The 390 has a bandwidth of 384 GB/s and the Fury has 4096 bit memory with a bandwidth of 512 GB/s.

AMD has had faster memory and more shaders for the last few generations but their slower GPU core clocks are what are really hurting them.
Click to expand...

Somewhat.

Maxwell can get by with lower memory bandwidth due to a new more advanced color compression algorithm, and a larger L2 cache.

AMD has a much less impressive delta color compression algorithm in the R 380, Fury, and nothing else. They have to make the buses wider to compensate.

As for max memory clocks, I've seen Nvidia shipping 6+ GHz stock cards at under $300 since 2012, and 7+ GHz stock cards at under $300 since 2013, so I can't say it's "better" memory. AMD has access to the same suppliers. It must be a better-designed memory controller, which was a real surprise after AMD destroyed Nvidia during the Fermi generation :D
 
misterbobby said:
This card is no man's land. A 970 can be had for only 60-70 bucks more and is in a whole other league being about 60% faster. 960 4 GB cards should be 200 bucks tops.
Click to expand...

960 cards are $199, 2GB models are MSRP $199, 4GB of course carries a premium

$60-70 is a big difference in this price range.... there is competition for the 970, but it isn't in the card price range as 960's
 
fanboy said:
Brent.. Did you know Sapphire was selling there Tri X 290X New Edition card last week for $259 with clock speeds of 1020/1350 ??

$20buxs buys a lot more performance .
Click to expand...

I was not aware, of course we cannot base an entire review on a limited sell, or one retailer/etailer sell that is temporary. We are also comparing new card to new card, in this case, the latest from NV and the new 300 series from AMD, not 290X's which we have done reviews of a lot on here you can find. Good deals crop up from time to time, take advantage of them, they don't last forever.
 
defaultluser said:
Thanks for this review guys!

I agree that the 4GB card doesn't justify it's extra cost for just one game. On the flip side, this means that the 2GB version is an incredible value :D

Yeah, I really think you should have given SILVER award to both these cards you reviewed: great, except for the $45 premium they charge you for 2GB extra ram (and little performance improvement).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback

On rewards, keep in mind the reward is for the card being reviewed, not the GPU generation/price segment as a whole. It is specific to the brand/model of the card we are reviewing.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Great article. If I had one nit-pick it would be that I think you should have highlighted the reduced power requirement of the 960 in your conclusion. Being well below the 300W mark means that even PCs with meagre PSUs can run this card.
Click to expand...

Good point
 
On memory, have to make up the bandwidth somehow, either you go wide bus and slower memory, or narrow bus and faster memory.

R9 380 also has delta color compression, same as R9 285, it is basically Tonga.
 
jbc029 said:
Since this review came so closely on the heels of the 380 review (thank you, btw), I have to ask the question.
Click to expand...

You noticed that huh, we kind of planned it that way, neat eh :p

both well covered, and direct overclock to overclock and memory capacity tests achieved
 
Brent_Justice said:
960 cards are $199, 2GB models are MSRP $199, 4GB of course carries a premium

$60-70 is a big difference in this price range.... there is competition for the 970, but it isn't in the card price range as 960's
Click to expand...
I am referring to the card being tested which is 240 bucks. Again 60-70 bucks more than that card buys a MASSIVE difference in performance that will give much more enjoyment for longer period of time.
 
Brent_Justice said:
On memory, have to make up the bandwidth somehow, either you go wide bus and slower memory, or narrow bus and faster memory.
Click to expand...

Now Brent, you've been in this business FAR TOO LONG to actually believe that BS you just typed, right? :D

Aggregate bandwidth is always more important in the real-time video rendering world over faster access. There's not enough of a clock speed difference on the GTX 960 and R9 285 to make up that half-width bus. Even with the increased L2 cache, Maxwell still needs more help.

R9 380 also has delta color compression, same as R9 285, it is basically Tonga.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you guys didn't test how effective it is versus Maxwell. Tech Report did, using a Beyond3D test:

GQd33nx.gif


http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4

While not a complete and concise test, it is indicative of how much more advanced Nvidia's implementation is. And Fiji is basically Tonga x 2, so this should be comparable. And this revised test has only been available since March, so nobody bothered to retest older cards :(

Tonga's 16% improvement is similar to the previous memory compression used on Kepler. So for the R9 285, that extra 128-bits of bus bandwidth (compared to the GTX 960) are there for a good reason!

This, along with the slightly higher clocks, plus increased L2 cache size is the reason Nvidia can get the same performance out of half the bus width on the GTX 960!
 
Last edited:
misterbobby said:
I am referring to the card being tested which is 240 bucks. Again 60-70 bucks more than that card buys a MASSIVE difference in performance that will give much more enjoyment for longer period of time.
Click to expand...

And $100 will buy you another faster card, and $150 another fast card, and $300 another faster card.... where your line is drawn, nobody knows

Fact is, of course more expensive cards are faster, we test cards based on the same price range they are in, for a price compatible comparison. If we were testing a $70 more expensive card, we'd compare it with a $70 more expensive card, and it would be an entirely different GPU performance bracket at that point.
 
Brent_Justice said:
And $100 will buy you another faster card, and $150 another fast card, and $300 another faster card.... where your line is drawn, nobody knows

Fact is, of course more expensive cards are faster, we test cards based on the same price range they are in, for a price compatible comparison. If we were testing a $70 more expensive card, we'd compare it with a $70 more expensive card, and it would be an entirely different GPU performance bracket at that point.
Click to expand...
Way to miss the simple point. AGAIN the 970 is 60% faster for only 25% more money and can handle games for MUCH longer. Going to the next Nvidia card over the 970 costs over 60% more and only delivers 15% more performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top