Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 G1 Gaming review

Noisiv

2015-01-22 21:04

AMD is dominating low-mid charts. Having a 270X, 280/280X for 150-200$ nvidia cant do anything with those specs and prices. Lets just wait R9 380X to wipes out 980 too. 😀 If there wasnt a 970 to sell that good nvidia would be in a bad place.

Warning: foreign language, mature content!! [spoiler] da je baba imala kurac zvala bi se dida 🙂 [/spoiler] You do realize that AMD would rather not be dominating low-mid charts? Pricing your previous big gun 3GB/384bit at $150-200 is not much of an accomplishment. Matter of fact it's a bad business, and an insult to Tahiti engineers. Particularly when your opponent is selling their tiny 128bit/2GB chips for $199.

#4997522

sykozis

2015-01-22 21:38

I think the performance for the low specs is actually pretty remarkable. I think what Nvidia needs to do is lower the price by around 50 dollars and introduce a Ti model with a bigger bus and more RAM at the current price of this one. I also was impressed at the free performance gains from overclocking this card. When you can gain 20 FPS with a few mouse clicks, to me that's worth something. I think a lot of people are more worried about the specs than the actual performance. I mean how many of us won't overclock our cards when we game? I'm not a hadrcore overclocker, but I don't remember ever loading a game without first overclocking my graphics. It seems like most cards out there do not seem to increase their performance after overclocking as much as this one. Plus most people who only pay 200 for a card usually only have a 1080P monitor anyway. Overclocking this card on a 1080P monitor is going to give great performance. I also predict that they will come out with a Ti model and lower the price on this anyway. Early adopters always end up paying too much, they should be used to it by now.

These cards don't gain 20fps from overclocking. They gain 3-10fps.

#4997606

Agent-A01

2015-01-23 00:20

Pretty bad release, would be perfect as a 149$ card. Looks more like a 950Ti

#4997636

Noisiv

2015-01-23 01:43

128bit card giving better playing experience than 256 and 384bit cards WOOT http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-960/value-99th.gif http://techreport.com/review/27702/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-graphics-card-reviewed/12

#4997698

sykozis

2015-01-23 04:45

XT?, that was the bad one. Was ok in some games but in others it choked badly compared to my ati 8500 64mb, friend of mine had it and was getting half my fps in colin mcRae 3, nfs hot pursuit 2, nfs underground, f1 2002 (Both had athlons xp, he better than mine). It performed like a rebadged fx5200, sometimes even worse. A scam: http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/over2003/index.html#p22 That card teach me that one should be careful buying this kind of stuff, specially with those flashy nvidia boxes. One day I almost, almost bought one but something told I should get advise first and walked away of the shop 🙂

My FX5600XT lasted all of 9 days. I took it back to my supplier who immediately traded the card out for an FX5700LE as instructed by MSI due to a recall they issued for pre-mature failed. The first time I ran 3DMark2001SE, the FX5600XT **** itself.

#4997711

maxio

2015-01-23 05:26

No matter how good, blah blah, etc this card is, I wouldn't buy ANY GPU with 2GB VRAM on board in 2015. IMHO 3GB is absolute minimum, 4GB preffered.

#4997780

bigfutus

2015-01-23 09:02

I am glad that i bought 970 months ago.

#4997818

Vtech

2015-01-23 10:31

I spend my money on a GTX970, it is a little overkill for my needs and monitor (1080P) but now it makes sense, since the price from this piece of **** is ridiculous compared to performance, I can´t understand the recommendation, no offense but the conclusions from Guru3D are invariable "Recommended" or "Top Pick", and in this case and all GTX960 deserves something bad, not because the product is bad but because there is better products in the same price range. In my case I know exactly what to buy, but many others rely on the opinion from sites like these, please don´t be biased and have the guts to give a bad conclusions, don't be another Gamespot.

#4997864

cowie

2015-01-23 12:32

well we are smarter then joe shmow off the street for its hardcore gaming use but I think getting one to 1600-1700 on just a bios and maybe dice would be cool. But even for that I would wait till prices get fixed

#4998127

Öhr

2015-01-23 19:58

Mhh interesting card for people on a tighter budget, but the price just doesnt justify it... anyway: any chance you can run Nai's Benchmark on that card? It should behave like a slower 980, but not like a ****ty 970!

#4998144

Fender178

2015-01-23 20:18

Not bad performance but there are better priced cards out there that are better than it. If you were to spend 56-60 bucks or more than you could get an r9 280X and beyond.

#4998500

Ryu5uzaku

2015-01-24 12:43

Not bad performance but there are better priced cards out there that are better than it. If you were to spend 56-60 bucks or more than you could get an r9 280X and beyond.

But for example here in Finland 280x is cheaper then this one.

#4998755

sykozis

2015-01-24 18:56

At $150, these cards would be good price/performance. At $200+...they're overpriced for their specs.