I agree GTX960 is a dud. Let's send a clear message to nVidia by boycotting GTX960.

they should just scrap low end cards and concentrate on mid to high end to enthusiast level . Its redundant and pointless to begin with unless its for those who just want to use dual monitor situation for work

Anyway have anyone tried nvidia 347.12 yet ? LOL tried it and seems to be having less stuttering and flickering at least for me .

This post has been edited by shikimori: Jan 21 2015, 10:26 AM

I would hoping that the 960 would have similar to close performance with 770 with a lowered price point.

There is 960 Ti and 960 Ti Boost for that.

Haha. A bad day 4 mid ranges it seems.

nah, my negativity on >VRAM is more on how older games still can have awesome textures yet doesnt max out the VRAM in the GPUs

Older games textures aren't that awesome compared to latest games. Most of them are so blurry including those on titanfall.

Crysis 3 is a 2 year old game yet > latest games.
Skyrim is a 3 year old game, but with mods > latest games.
GTA4 is a game from the last century but with mods > latest games.

All 3 games doesn't even tax VRAM. See the trend here?

Okay, Skyrim and GTA4 needs mods to look great. But even with mods, we're not going above 4GB of VRAM either.

What's happening now a days is that games are having multi layer texture maps and are placing them all to load through PS4/Xbone's VRAM ability to stream via AMD's HSA tech. This isn't available on PC graphics cards, at least not yet. The main engines (Unity, UE4, Cry3, AnvilNext, and so on) all support HSA, so why hasn't Nvidia reel out the appropriate support yet? Nvidia's own Gameworks API doesn't have anything similar either.

This post has been edited by SSJBen: Jan 21 2015, 11:27 PM

So...the cheapest GTX960 so far is the Palit GTX960 RM899 from IdealTech.

And that's still overpriced.

It should be around RM800. A risky move from NVidia TBH.

well SSJBen sort of answered what i wanted to answer

those MP focused games have to be avoid using as examples, as theyre never meant for "high end graphics" anyway, they dont cater to that

even with my Skyrim with 4K res texture pack, even if its filled with bucket full of other graphical mods, it barely taxes 3GB VRAM cards. and it still look superb as well. their stock one was nasty as fuk btw, 128x128 reso max

and then suddenly Shadow Of Mordor comes in with Ultra Texture DLC, i tried it. and game keep crashing due to insufficient memory (GPU-Z shows maxing at 3+GB VRAM and being throttled by that)

and then visual checking time, i see no discernible differences (granted i only downsample from 2880x1620p) as their High settings is plenty superb already

the trend of constantly spamming uncompressed textures just because "muh next gen" is getting out of hand these days. Watchdogs look like crap. yet requires >3GB VRAM. what? how???

if this trend continues just cause "marketing tactic of more is better", GPU manufacturers cannot catch up as 8GB GDDR5 are not cheap and easily to mass produced yet (theres a reason workstation cards with 12GB VRAM are obnoxiously priced)


in short, i like how the direction the market is going, but only if the higher VRAM is to be utilised efficiently.

Workstation card's VRAM is expensive because it's based on ECC RAM, normal gamer's GPU comes with non-ECC RAM which is cheap. Not to mention the expensive part of workstation GPU is the support by the manufacturer.

This post has been edited by terradrive: Jan 21 2015, 10:01 PM

haha yeah interesting insights there i am just very disgusted with the overusing of multi layer graphics without hard compressing

347.12? I don't even see it on nvidia's driver site...is it official?

developer release , you can check on guru3d forums .

will try it tonight

hi guys, any recommendation for CPU + mobo ? i have RM 750 budget @.@

Well reviews are out...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia...x-960,4038.html

...and it's not particularly impressive, since you can get the R9 280/X for about the same money here...

347.25 WHQL is released!