40 replies to this topic

[Furry Fox]

Hello, everyone.

Well, today my EVGA GTX 280 appears to have died. I was playing mwo, and then out of nowhere a bunch of green artifacts started to appear. I removed the card and rid it of dust, but that didn't help; even though my temps were surprisingly low (~50 deg C), the problem kept on getting worse. Now I see artifacts while booting, and I get BSODs referencing nvlddmkm.sys while browsing the desktop.

Anyways, now I'm looking for something to replace my old card with! The problem is that I have not built a computer since 2009, so I'm completely out of the loop regarding what's good and what's not. As such, I would sincerely appreciate any recommendations. Here's what I'm looking for...

• I want something that could work well with a new system, as my current system is 6+ years old and might not last very long.
  
• I want an NVIDIA card that is made by EVGA.
  
• I don't want to spend over $350.

Here are some of my relevant specs...

ABIT IX38 Quad GT LGA 775 Intel X38 ATX Intel Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield Quad-Core 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor - Overclocked to 2.7GHz
G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2 RAM
PC Power and Cooling S75QB 750W Power Supply
Microsoft Windows Vista 64-Bit Ultimate

I know it's an old machine, but it still performs very well - even on new games. I'm not ready to let go of it just yet!

Also, are these hierarchies reliable? I'm trying to make sense of the current market by reviewing them.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/
http://www.tomshardw...iew,3107-7.html

Thank you very much in advance for any help! I can't wait to get back in my 'Mechs and on the battlefield.


Edit:
I'm currently looking at these cards... any thoughts? Is the 970 worth $150 more than the 960?
EVGA 04G-P4-3975-KR GeForce GTX 970 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5
EVGA 02G-P4-2966-KR GeForce GTX 960 Gaming 2GB 128-Bit GDDR5
EVGA 02G-P4-2962-KR GeForce GTX 960 Superclocked 2GB GDDR5

Edited by Furry Fox, 02 February 2015 - 07:40 PM.

[Catamount]

I don't think a Q6600 is going to do a good job keeping up with a 970. That CPU is just going to seriously hold that GPU back. A 960 might be a better fit, but truthfully, I'm concerned about whether even that's just a colossal waste of money, too.

Honestly, is anything more than a 750TI or something really desirable here? Maybe others here have more recent experience with these CPUs. I haven't been using a Core 2 in some time.

[Furry Fox]

Catamount, on 02 February 2015 - 08:02 PM, said:

I don't think a Q6600 is going to do a good job keeping up with a 970. That CPU is just going to seriously hold that GPU back. A 960 might be a better fit, but truthfully, I'm concerned about whether even that's just a colossal waste of money, too.

Honestly, is anything more than a 750TI or something really desirable here? Maybe others here have more recent experience with these CPUs. I haven't been using a Core 2 in some time.

Thanks for the reply!
Well, it might be a waste on this system, but I will certainly put it to good use on my next system.

My FPS currently use to fluctuate between 25-50 with an average of 40~ish, but I'm not sure that my CPU was the limiting factor. I do remember that lowering settings such as object detail, environmental detail, and shading made the biggest impacts. Surprisingly, adjusting the particle setting didn't have much an effect on my PC - I could leave them on very high & play comfortably whereas I notice that a lot of people turn it down low. Turning up the shadows setting didn't have a very large impact either.

Edited by Furry Fox, 02 February 2015 - 08:13 PM.

[darqsyde]

For gaming at 1080p, a 960 is really all you need. However, if you want to go to 1440p or 4k, then you'd be looking at a 970/980 (or SLI 970+)

I'm quite surprised that your CPU runs the game as well as you say. I don't doubt your observations, just find it surprising. The real limiting factor for MWO, at present, appears to be CPU, so, more power to ya.

Also, while the Tom's list is a reasonable rule of thumb, be sure to check the review of the individual GPUs/cards.

[Furry Fox]

darqsyde, on 02 February 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

For gaming at 1080p, a 960 is really all you need. However, if you want to go to 1440p or 4k, then you'd be looking at a 970/980 (or SLI 970+)

I'm quite surprised that your CPU runs the game as well as you say. I don't doubt your observations, just find it surprising. The real limiting factor for MWO, at present, appears to be CPU, so, more power to ya.

Also, while the Tom's list is a reasonable rule of thumb, be sure to check the review of the individual GPUs/cards.

Thanks a bunch!

Well, my current monitor runs at 1650x1080. While I might someday upgrade to a 1080p monitor, I don't think I'll ever get a 1440p or 4k one. Given that information, is the 970 not worth it? I found this website to compare them http://gpuboss.com/g...GeForce-GTX-960, but I'm not sure of the significance of those figures.

I would not object to paying more for the 970 if it provides a noticeable performance increase over the 960 at my resolution. I'll try to find more detailed reviews of each card as you suggested.

Edited by Furry Fox, 02 February 2015 - 08:35 PM.

[Lordred]

The GTX960 is a solid performer what will use 1/3rd the power of your GTX 280. You will not be wronged by that card for your system.

Despite its 128bit bus the Maxwells compression algorithms will keep you from bottoming out on Vram. If you do not plan to upgrade the rest of the sysem, the 960 will be your happy place, if you plan to upgrade everything else, it may be worth coining up for the 970.

Edited by Lordred, 02 February 2015 - 08:41 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

If you by a 970 you can truely aim for 1440p monitor later. Since 290s 290X are in your price range you may should look up one of those cards. They are also capable for this Resolution even better with full 4GB than a 970 beside that the performance is slightly behind the 970. Also away from MWO Mantle can help to squeez out some FPS on your old 775 base until you will upgrade it.

I don't recommend you to get a 960 its an awfull card. Yes in Full HD the card is okayish, but it lack more VRAM. I have a 2GB 770 which performs equal to the 960, and i occasionally run into VRAM issues, when i wann see games in DSR/Full Details with AA on Full HD. If you wanna have a good FullHD Card get a 280X which never should be set back by its 4GB VRAM before performance will bring you down under 30FPS in today games.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 02 February 2015 - 08:44 PM.

[Furry Fox]

Lordred, on 02 February 2015 - 08:36 PM, said:

The GTX960 is a solid performer what will use 1/3rd the power of your GTX 280. You will not be wronged by that card for your system.

Really? Sweet! Does that mean less heat? My GTX 280 would often reach temps of 80~ish degrees Celsius while gaming.

Kuritaclan, on 02 February 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

If you by a 970 you can truely aim for 1440p monitor later. Since 290s 290X are in your price range you may should look up one of those cards. They are also capable for this Resolution. Also beside of MWO Mantle can help to squeez out some FPS on your old 775 base until you will upgrade it.

I don't recommend you to get a 960 its an awfull card. Yes in Full HD the card is okayish, but it lack more VRAM. I have a 2GB 770 which performs equal to the 960, and i occasionally run into VRAM issues, when i wann see games in DSR/Full Details with AA on Full HD. If you wanna have a good FullHD Card get a 280X which never should be set back by its 4GB VRAM before performance will bring you down under 30FPS in today games.

That was the one difference between the 960 and 970 that I noticed right away (2 vs 4 GB of VRAM). If 4 GB is really necessary, then I can see why going for the 970 would be the right choice. Right now I I use to play with my texture setting on "high" with 1 GB of VRAM, though, and things seemed to work okay. I did get slight stuttering when quickly turning corners and coming across a bunch of 'Mechs, though.

Edited by Furry Fox, 02 February 2015 - 08:49 PM.

[Lordred]

Kuritaclan, on 02 February 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

Spoiler

If you by a 970 you can truely aim for 1440p monitor later. Since 290s 290X are in your price range you may should look up one of those cards. They are also capable for this Resolution. Also beside of MWO Mantle can help to squeez out some FPS on your old 775 base until you will upgrade it.

I don't recommend you to get a 960 its an awfull card. Yes in Full HD the card is okayish, but it lack more VRAM. I have a 2GB 770 which performs equal to the 960, and i occasionally run into VRAM issues, when i wann see games in DSR/Full Details with AA on Full HD. If you wanna have a good FullHD Card get a 280X which never should be set back by its 4GB VRAM before performance will bring you down under 30FPS in today games.

Again, 1080p the 960 is more then ample.

About Mantel: If PGI does not adapt the API, then it will do nothing for him.

Furry Fox, on 02 February 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

Really? Sweet! Does that mean less heat? My GTX 280 would often reach temps of 80~ish degrees Celsius while gaming.

The GTX280 was a monster of a card, yes the 960 will be substantially cooler.


The R9 290x is also a great choice with AMD pulling the price down to take advantage of the fiasco going on with the GTX970 only addressing 3.5gb on one partition, and 0.5 on another. It would be a great buy at this time. But would be hobbled by your Q6600.

[Kuritaclan]

Well Maxwell is a third to a quarter of energy use to have same performance like those 2XX cards. So in the end this less consumed wattage is by iteself cooler. But with same wattage consumption you will have a gain in performance over this old cards by factor 4-5.

Quote

Again, 1080p the 960 is more then ample.

Beside that VRAM is a bit better handled by Maxwell compared to kepler. I bet that this argument will get beaten up like a bad boxer in the next games.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 02 February 2015 - 08:50 PM.

[ilikerice]

Hey Furry Fox,

I'm a bit of an EVGA fanboy and was using a 460 in closed beta and I'm currently running a 660ti and have had no problems. I'm running 1920x1080 with very high settings and except for the laser particle effects hitting the terrain while walking backwards I get no slowdown. I was looking at the new 970's and 980's for me, but I don't see any reason why a 960 wouldn't function just fine for your needs. It would be a good card and the cheapest option to get back into the action.

You already seem to know that the rest of your machine could do with an upgrade, and when that happens it's not going to be like you need to turn around and get ANOTHER card to keep up with it. the 60's have always been very good performers for me.

-J

[Goose]

http://www.tomshardw...iew,3107-7.html

That 750Ti is looking pretty good …

But really: The 960 will be useful, longer …

[Furry Fox]

Wow, you guys are awesome! I am overwhelmed by all of the replies.
Rather than feeling sad over the loss of my videocard, I am actually pretty excited! Right now I am heavily leaning towards purchasing the GTX 960, but I am going to Google "Maxwell Kepler vram" to figure out what is being discussed.

[Kuritaclan]

Goose, on 02 February 2015 - 08:48 PM, said:

http://www.tomshardw...iew,3107-7.html

That 750Ti is looking pretty good …

But really: The 960 will be useful, longer …

A 750TI is somewhat 3 times faster than a 280 (http://www.videocard...GeForce+GTX+460), even this will be a boost. But if the money is there, a low/midend performance card is the better way to go.

Furry Fox, on 02 February 2015 - 09:00 PM, said:

Wow, you guys are awesome! I am overwhelmed by all of the replies.
Rather than feeling sad over the loss of my videocard, I am actually pretty excited! Right now I am heavily leaning towards purchasing the GTX 960, but I am going to Google "Maxwell Kepler vram" to figure out what is being discussed.

Well i updated my rig from a GTX260 to a GTX 770 with 2GB. With the card came Watch Dog as offer. And as we saw after release the 770s couldn't handle the game with full set of details.
First released: The performance was awfull:


with patch and other setting you then get the card to a minimum on fps:


So when you now get a 960 you may experince with new games same problems. But if you are playing today on a 1680x1050 you are like me don't be that haeavly annoyed that your new card can't handle games which got delivered with the cards on full details. After all it left a sour taste.

But in the end it showed first time that NV grapic cards with not that much VRAM could lack in perfomance after a while faster than cards from amd since those have more vram. Well you can by a 960 with 4GB if it gets released later, but i think you don't will do so, since this card will then cost even 50 bucks more.

For the performance in MWO it isn't anything to consider. But maybee you will play more today AAA titels when you have your new card.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 02 February 2015 - 09:26 PM.

[Davegt27]

Funny my GTX650 2 GB went out last Friday
It’s one year and one month old and should be under warranty

If I do have to buy another video card it won’t bean NVIDIA

[Furry Fox]

Hmm, I am starting to lean towards the GTX 970 now after looking at a few benchmarks. I understand what you are saying, Kuritaclan.

Video
Kotaku
PC World
Tom's Hardware

I think that I am going to have to sleep on this. Going with the 970 is a $150 difference, but a year or two (or six ) down the road I don't want to look back and regret not having spent the extra $$$.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

960 why?

Simple, you've said it yourself your not ready to ditch the rest of the PC and upgrade.
What you have now will seriously bottle up a 970 making it a giant waste of money.

By the time it dies or you decide your ready it could be a year or two years and we will be into another revision of GPUs and probably on the way into the next...

If buy some act of the computer God you do happen to upgrade sooner you can always add a second 960 which do perform well in modern games despite their 2gb limit.

Here is watchdogs that Kurita likes to bang on about


The 960 is what the 960 is a mid range card for mid range machines

Edited by DV McKenna, 03 February 2015 - 02:28 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Since it is DX 11 you don't see Mantel in the above posted picture. But anyhow if you look up the full review you see that a SLI of 960s is Bullshit by itself. http://www.techspot....ance/page8.html

Crysis 3 a GTX970 is slightly behind the 960 SLI.
BS Infinity a GTX970 is slightly behind the 960 SLI.
BF4 because of DX11 Test only AMD Raedons behind. Anyway a GTX970 is slightly behind the 960 SLI.
Thief because of DX11 Test only AMD Raedons behind. Anyway a GTX970 slightly in Front of the 960 SLI.
Watch Dogs you see that the 960s are hold back by 2GB Vram compared to the 280X CF.

And now the big problem of all figures: They are avg. Framrates!.

to quote techspot

Quote

As good as the GTX 960 SLI setup looks next to the expensive GTX 980 flagship, dual R9 280X cards are the biggest hurdle. Although they are more expensive at $220 each, the R9 280X Crossfire cards were faster. Nvidia's pair might cost 9% less but it's also 13% slower and while that might not seem like much, keep in mind the R9 280X isn't a new product at over a year old now, so not a lot of progress has been made here.
Overall, going SLI with the GTX 960 doesn't seem like the smartest decision. Most gamers would be better off with a single GTX 970 while those looking to spend just $200 have no better option than a lone GTX 960, though it's only marginally better than the R9 285 in sheer performance.

Now when you have better tests where min and max FPS get shown: http://www.tomshardw...960,4038-4.html

You see results you would hate the 960 for. Unfortunately toms hardware doenst have tested 1440p resolutions with min/max FPS but as you can see in Far Cry 4 for example the 4k test

A R9 280X is barrely capable to hold the FPS above 30 with 4k, while the GTX960 and a GTX 770 with 2GB VRAM are capped at 23FPS minimum since the RAM can't handle the textures anymore. This problem will stay true for further games like Shadow of Mordor, and AMD has better resolution skaling on their cards:


So in the end the DSR feature by NV gpu's get blown away by their lack of VRAM. Highresolution, highdetail+AA and or game mods break the GTX 960s the neck as they do to GTX 770. Well a FullHD System is okayish with a GTX 960 by now, but this doesn't stay true if future will go to higher resolution/high textures.

But look up the results yourself: http://www.tomshardw...x-960,4038.html

In the end you are better advised to get a second hand 280X then a brand new GTX 960 (there are enough out in auctions since enough people have upgraded or are upgrading to GTX 970/980s and to the midlle of the year the 380/390 upgrade wave will follow). The 280X will cost less and have more performance only set back is a higher wattage consumption. Or get a brand new GTX 970.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 03 February 2015 - 05:32 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Kuritaclan, on 03 February 2015 - 05:14 AM, said:

Since it is DX 11 you don't see Mantel in the above posted picture. But anyhow if you look up the full review you see that a SLI of 960s is Bullshit by itself. http://www.techspot....ance/page8.html

Crysis 3 a GTX970 is slightly behind the 960 SLI.
BS Infinity a GTX970 is slightly behind the 960 SLI.
BF4 because of DX11 Test only AMD Raedons behind. Anyway a GTX970 is slightly behind the 960 SLI.
Thief because of DX11 Test only AMD Raedons behind. Anyway a GTX970 slightly in Front of the 960 SLI.
Watch Dogs you see that the 960s are hold back by 2GB Vram compared to the 280X CF.

And now the big problem of all figures: They are avg. Framrates!.

to quote techspot


Now when you have better tests where min and max FPS get shown: http://www.tomshardw...960,4038-4.html

You see results you would hate the 960 for. Unfortunately toms hardware doenst have tested 1440p resolutions with min/max FPS but as you can see in Far Cry 4 for example the 4k test

A R9 280X is barrely capable to hold the FPS above 30 with 4k, while the GTX960 and a GTX 770 with 2GB VRAM are capped at 23FPS minimum since the RAM can't handle the textures anymore. This problem will stay true for further games like Shadow of Mordor, and AMD has better resolution skaling on their cards:


So in the end the DSR feature by NV gpu's get blown away by their lack of VRAM. Highresolution, highdetail+AA and or game mods break the GTX 960s the neck as they do to GTX 770. Well a FullHD System is okayish with a GTX 960 by now, but this doesn't stay true if future will go to higher resolution/high textures.

But look up the results yourself: http://www.tomshardw...x-960,4038.html

In the end you are better advised to get a second hand 280X then a brand new GTX 960 (there are enough out in auctions since enough people have upgraded or are upgrading to GTX 970/980s and to the midlle of the year the 380/390 upgrade wave will follow). The 280X will cost less and have more performance only set back is a higher wattage consumption. Or get a brand new GTX 970.

Why would you buy a mid range GPU to push resolutions of 3840*2160

That's like buying a Peugoet 206 and expecting to match Ferrari Lap times

If all you have is extreme resolutions to discredit a mid range GPU i feel sorry for you.

The OP isn't gaming at those resolutions and has stated he is unlikely to go beyond 1080P

so use the actual relevant benchmarks of 1080P from this page.

http://www.tomshardw...960,4038-4.html

Right where it's supposed to be, playable framerates at high detail 1080P

Edited by DV McKenna, 03 February 2015 - 05:42 AM.

[xWiredx]

OP: Based on everything you've mentioned, a GTX 960 from EVGA is your best choice. With your resolution not even being 1080p, there's definitely no need for more than 2GB of VRAM. Your CPU will be a limiting factor no matter which newer card you get (until you build a newer system).

There is a catch! If you plan on upgrading to a 1080p monitor before too long and whatever card you buy now will still be used at that point, the GTX 970 becomes a better prospect. CW matches use more VRAM, and at 1080p can go over the 2GB limit that the GTX 960 would have (dependent on video settings obviously).