Full graphics settings

[guncrasher]

Opinions aside, the 960 was never a top of the line card. In fact, it was specifically intended to be a budget-minded mid-level card.

yup but when you compared them to what was offered at the time, they were top of the line.  just ask him how much he paid for those "budget" cards.


semp

[Skyyr]

yup but when you compared them to what was offered at the time, they were top of the line.  just ask him how much he paid for those "budget" cards.

semp

"Top of the line" implies that they were among the best-performing cards that best money could buy at the time. The 960 is specifically the lower-end offering of the GTX 900-series, of which the 980 currently tops. Further, the 960 was released after the 970 and 980; therefore, it is literally impossible for it to have ever been top of the line, as it was released as a lesser-performing card after it's better-performing siblings were already available.

Perhaps you meant they were one the best budget cards for performance vs. cost available at the time? Because that's what the card has been marketed as from day 1.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

ripley forgets the #1 rule.  if you are happy and you can afford it then do it.  after all he did spend several hundred euros to buy stuff that in the eyes of others dont really help.


semp

What he did is a done deal. However advising someone to repeat his trick, whole other ballpark. I would not advise to do that.

[ebfd11]

OK what card would you have recommended that can run triple screen, thats not an ATI, that can still run at 5760X1080 Ripley???

LawnDart

[Skyyr]

OK what card would you have recommended that can run triple screen, thats not an ATI, Ripley???

LawnDart

Just out of curiosity, why not AMD? I'm unbiased, but, historically speaking, AMD has the market relatively cornered for high resolution multi-screen setups.

[-ammo-]

These are my settings and I never go under 59 FPS which is my monitor's refresh rate. My monitor is a VP2770-LED and run AH at 2560x1440.


I run an I7-4790K at 4GHz and a GeForce GTX 980.  I can max the object detail and ground detail range but have to back off the other settings to keep at 59 FPS.  I have seen some stutters with EVERYTHING on and sliders pushed to the left.

[ebfd11]

Just out of curiosity, why not AMD? I'm unbiased, but, historically speaking, AMD has the market relatively cornered for high resolution multi-screen setups.

I have run both and with my current monitor configuration, I don't have top of the line high dollar monitors, with AMD you generally have to use the display ports on the back and I am not in the market for changing my monitors out just yet. I have 2 running off DVI and 1 running off HDMI.... simple setup a couple of clicks and its running.

LawnDart

[guncrasher]

"Top of the line" implies that they were among the best-performing cards that best money could buy at the time. The 960 is specifically the lower-end offering of the GTX 900-series, of which the 980 currently tops. Further, the 960 was released after the 970 and 980; therefore, it is literally impossible for it to have ever been top of the line, as it was released as a lesser-performing card after it's better-performing siblings were already available.

Perhaps you meant they were one the best budget cards for performance vs. cost available at the time? Because that's what the card has been marketed as from day 1.

semp
back then there were hundreds of video cards and those were in the top 10.  When first came out.

[Skyyr]

semp
back then there were hundreds of video cards and those were in the top 10.  When first came out.

Not trying to argue, but you're mistaken.

The following cards were released before the Nvidia GTX 960 and are faster in overall performance:

AMD R9 295X2
AMD R9 290X
AMD R9 290
AMD R9 285
AMD R9 280X
Nvidia GTX 980
Nvidia GTX 970
Nvidia GTX 780 Ti
Nvidia GTX 780
Nvidia GTX 770
Nvidia GTX 760 Ti


That's just taking 4 minutes to go from recent memory and not covering 3rd-generation cards (such as the GTX 580, which is still faster than the 960) or non-reference card options.

The point is that the 960 was never a "top" card nor was it ever intended to be, and it's definitely not in the top 10, either when it launched or now. It is specifically made by Nvidia to meet mainstream gamers needs within a specific price range. The "60" in 960 in its name denotes its placement as a mid-level card, and as such it's slower than even previous generation cards of an equivalently-higher tier. It's roughly equivalent to a GTX 760 (and that's not coincidence, given the naming convention). Notice that even previous "700" series cards with higher numerical naming conventions outperform the 960 (such as the 770, 780, etc.) - yet again, not coincidence.

That said, the 960 remains a great option for mainstream 1080p gaming. However, it was designed as a mid-level product and performs as such.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

OK what card would you have recommended that can run triple screen, thats not an ATI, that can still run at 5760X1080 Ripley???

LawnDart

This

[Masherbrum]

OK what card would you have recommended that can run triple screen, thats not an ATI, that can still run at 5760X1080 Ripley???

LawnDart

My 780Ti pulls 60+ frames in any game across three monitors. 

[38ruk]

Not trying to argue, but you're mistaken.

The following cards were released before the Nvidia GTX 960 and are faster in overall performance:

AMD R9 295X2
AMD R9 290X
AMD R9 290
AMD R9 285
AMD R9 280X
Nvidia GTX 980
Nvidia GTX 970
Nvidia GTX 780 Ti
Nvidia GTX 780
Nvidia GTX 770
Nvidia GTX 760 Ti


That's just taking 4 minutes to go from recent memory and not covering 3rd-generation cards (such as the GTX 580, which is still faster than the 960) or non-reference card options.

The point is that the 960 was never a "top" card nor was it ever intended to be, and it's definitely not in the top 10, either when it launched or now. It is specifically made by Nvidia to meet mainstream gamers needs within a specific price range. The "60" in 960 in its name denotes its placement as a mid-level card, and as such it's slower than even previous generation cards of an equivalently-higher tier. It's roughly equivalent to a GTX 760 (and that's not coincidence, given the naming convention). Notice that even previous "700" series cards with higher numerical naming conventions outperform the 960 (such as the 770, 780, etc.) - yet again, not coincidence.

That said, the 960 remains a great option for mainstream 1080p gaming. However, it was designed as a mid-level product and performs as such.

Totally accurate assessment . The 960 is a good card for the money , but it's almost the same price as the faster 280x  ( $189 after rebate.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202137 )  ,which has an extra GB of Video ram.  If you have enough PSU , the 280X would be pretty tempting IMHO. 

[guncrasher]

Totally accurate assessment . The 960 is a good card for the money , but it's almost the same price as the faster 280x  ( $189 after rebate.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202137 )  ,which has an extra GB of Video ram.  If you have enough PSU , the 280X would be pretty tempting IMHO.

back then it was going for well over 300 bucks. not really a budget card as he wants to prove, was it worth the money?  well it was worth to lawndar as he's happy with it.  I traded 2 465's for a single 770.  I spent 380 and something on my fist 465's and about 120 on my second one.  the 770 cost me around 400 bucks.  didnt see an improvement.

but after all I am happy with my 770.  will be trading it later this year when I upgrade to a faster cup and mobo. and a 9xx something vc.  it wont really make the game faster or better than what I have, but heck it makes me happy  .


semp

[Masherbrum]

back then it was going for well over 300 bucks. not really a budget card as he wants to prove, was it worth the money?  well it was worth to lawndar as he's happy with it.  I traded 2 465's for a single 770.  I spent 380 and something on my fist 465's and about 120 on my second one.  the 770 cost me around 400 bucks.  didnt see an improvement.

but after all I am happy with my 770.  will be trading it later this year when I upgrade to a faster cup and mobo. and a 9xx something vc.  it wont really make the game faster or better than what I have, but heck it makes me happy  .


semp

But Skyrr is correct, it was never a top end card, regardless of the cost when released.   I run three monitors and saw a significant increase of FR's when I went from a 770 GTX Classified to the 780 Ti that I have now.   A significant increase.   

[Skyyr]

back then it was going for well over 300 bucks. not really a budget card as he wants to prove

It was only ever a mainstream budget-focused card. And it was never $300 (unless one simply chose to overpay for it due to ignorance or you were a non-US buyer in which case all cards would be more expensive). Its MSRP from day 1 was ~$200.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2873713/nvidia-releases-geforce-gtx-960-at-a-surprisingnly-low-price.html

And the discussion isn't about it being a budget card, but rather the fact that it was never a "top of the line" card, as you claimed. It simply isn't. Read the article linked above and you'll see it doesn't even qualify as an "enthusiast" card, which is a group all "top of the line" cards would belong to.