i aint a fanboy bro u can keep on doing what fanbois do

Something ought to be wrong if fanboys themselves don't even wanna buy GTX 960.

Then again, fanboys also proved they can be wrong......like GTX 970.....

I said improved. Nvidia can allocate that 500mb just for Windows/non-gaming stuff. Ever check your VRAM usage while idling on desktop? Mine hovering over 300MB right now.

doesnt mean its using the slow partion of memory for your desktop

Nvidia is just too greedy

Ayam confused. How come 128-bit still on par with some 256-bit and 384-bit cards?

http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/..._Gaming/28.html

Benchmark don't tell all the story. Case in point, GTX970 stutterfest.

Details pls. Else don't generalize everything to be similar with GTX 970. Different GPU, different configuration. Mana sama?

The detail is that it has 128 bit vram.

you must view the bus width in relation to the memory speed.

that also you need to consider the architecture. For example the R9 285 is 256bit but it is almost as fast as R9 280X that's 384bit with higher GB/s.

it's also quite common to see newer cards with lower bus width perform similar or better than old cards with higher bus width.

Thank you. This is exactly the confirmation that I am looking at, rather than a generalization that lower memory bit means poorer performance. Comparing memory bus width alone for a graphic card's performance is indeed incomplete and does not tell an overall picture, as some pointed out above.

GTX960 destroyed GTX280 with 512bit bus memory. Why is that?

Bro its like comparing a 1.2tsi engine to a 1.5l n.a engine, the 1.2tsi can pawn the 1.5l anytime. Higher c.c engine does not mean power and efficiency.

Sorry I'm bringing engines as comparison

There are multiple factors in play, some off the top of my head;
1. Architecture of the GPU
2. Memory addressing/compression techniques involved
3. Process step in semiconductor fabrication (ie 32nm, 22nm, 14nm and so forth)

So it's not as clear cut as comparing 128bit to 256bit to 384bit to 512bit etc etc.

128, 256 bits isn't important anyways, it's the end result of memory bandwidth that's important. It's a more appropriate to compare rather than comparing what bits it have.

Bear in mind I didn't mention about the GPU core yet, just comparing memory.

Precisely. I think the new GM206 and Tonga GPU feature new memory compression techniques, effectively making them comparable in terms of available memory bandwidth compared to some older cards with larger physical memory bus width. The thing I cannot understand is some people just look at the physical bus width and then conclude that it is a lousy card with low memory bus width and therefore poor graphical performance.

I think you're confusing which side of the argument I'm on.

I'm just adding only, not arguing with you haha

Glad to see that there are still rational people irregardless which side of the fence we're on. Anyway this is Nvidia discussion thread, not Nvidia fanboy thread so good constructive discussion is always welcomed. Cheers everyone.

But it is true that GTX 960 don't quite make the hype compared to the 760 (or even 460) last time. Perhaps the performance improvement wasn't quite big enough to get people interested. I've talked to the owner of a local PC shop recently and he lamented in the poor sales of the 960 and despite the fiasco, the 970 is still the better selling card. Lucky thing there are now reference 960 for sale at around RM769 (Leadtek/Zotac), else I don't know how they are going to sell compared to more attractively priced R9 280/285.

Not an apple orange comparison. nVidia purposely cripple gtx960.

Yeah, but I am comparing bandwidth also. Its quite low.

Benchmark is cheating because nVidia have optimized the driver to do compression. In real life, compression is less efficient causing GTX 960 to be way slower compared to benchmark FPS.

GTX960 is doomed. It will not sell. Unless some gamer are too blind to see the terrible bandwidth it has.