Going to build a new computer soon...

[Mikal]

How much better is a GTX 970(£268) than a GTX 960(£176)? The price range between the two is f**king huge and so I'd rather get the 960 if it really is a decent GPU...

I'm noticing some huge performance issues on games nowadays with my current PC which I've had since 2012, not surprising though, it's got a GTX 650 which I think is being bottle necked by the CPU...

Expect more questions!

[TheRock]

If your current GTX 650 is being bottleneck'd you'd rather fix that with some OC or CPU Upgrade other than upgrading your graphics!

Back in summer before I bought the AMD Bulldozer, I bought a MSI GTX 960 to pair with my then overclocked Q6600.. Guess what.. GTX was running around 15-20% while CPU was 100% and there were laaaaaaaaaaaaagspikes everywhere.
For me, it's worth the money.. Keep in mind that it's what you pay that you get. If you wanna hold for much longer then sure GTX 970.
(GTX 960>128bit.. GTX 970>256bit! Although I am not sure if the issue with it's 3,5+0.5GB Vram is fixed in any version)

And then again, if I were you I'd go for R9 380-390 but that's just me loving AMD haha.

[Mikal]

Well I'm talking about a building completely new PC, I'll just stick my current one in the cupboard for future generations to laugh at.

What's these problems with the GTX 960 Vram you speak of? Whatever Vram is...
I've just read about the GTX 960 only having 2GB being a problem, is it really though?

Cheers!

[rid]

Both GPUs (970 and 960) offer about the same price per FPS, however the cheaper 960's only have 2GB of VRAM, which is rather low nowadays, not enough to play GTA V with max textures unless you like massive stuttering / lag spikes / slowdowns, and many games use more than 2GB nowadays.

I'd recommend to either pay a bit more and get the cheapest 960 with 4GB of VRAM you can find, at the cost of a worse price per FPS ratio, or just spend a bit more and go with the 970, which has a better price per FPS ratio than the 4GB versions of the 960.

Please note that a 4GB 960 won't really increase your FPS in benchmarks, but it WILL get rid of stuttering issues that you might encounter in some games AND enable you to increase some settings even higher (such as textures) without massive slowdowns that would otherwise happen in the 2GB version of the card.

The 3.5+0.5GB "issue" isn't nearly as bad as many AMD fanboys will make you think, and it is still much better than having a 2GB 960 - because these 2GB will run out very fast in recent games.

R9 380 is a solid competitor against the GTX 960, and the R9 390 is also a solid competitor against the 970. R9 380 has more or less the same performance as a 960, for about the same price. Same thing happens with the R9 390 vs the GTX 970. In some games the AMD cards may win, in others the NVIDIA cards win. The difference between them used to be a little bigger, but in 2016 both sides have had many driver updates and so the performance between eachother is closer, and the differences are not so big. Again, in some games a 960 might win against a r9 380 and a 970 might win against a r9 390; and in other games, a r9 380 might win against a 960 and a r9 390 might win against a 970. It's up to you to check what games you're going to play and see their benchmarks to see which side "wins".

In terms of power consumption, R9 380 vs GTX 960 and R9 390 vs GTX 970 aren't too different - AMD may require a little bit more power overall (although I think the 960 did consume a little bit more than the R9 380... didn't check) but it's nothing worth stressing out like some NVIDIA fanboys like to say in their favor.

All in all, I think it comes down to which side you prefer to be, and which features do you like the most:

NVIDIA has for example Shadowplay, which is faster than AMD's GVR, since it only takes about 1-2% of a performance hit, while AMD side takes about a 6-8% performance hit, and it also has a vertical resolution limit of 1080 pixels, so you won't be able to record at proper 1440p, 4K, etc. This, of course, is only relevant if you like to record videos while playing.

Then there's PhysX, which is also for NVIDIA, but only a few games use it. So it's not really a must-have or a deciding feature, unless you have these games that use it and you really really really like the effects that it produces. You can still have these PhysX effects on AMD cards, but it will use the CPU instead, which will result in lower FPS if you have these effects enabled.

NVIDIA also has CUDA, which is useful in some programs, such as Premiere Pro (video editing), basically offering you faster video previewing, some faster effects rendering, etc, that may make your workflow faster. But so far in games, I've only seen Just Cause 2 use it, for a water effect.

Finally, NVIDIA also has GameWorks, which is kind of a "replacement" for PhysX, in some way, allowing you to have exclusive fancy game effects, and G-Sync which is monitor related.

On the AMD side you have TressFX instead of PhysX, although not many games use it either (I think even less than PhysX), you also have FreeSync and supposedly better DirectX 12 support, although we still don't have many DX 12 games at all so we don't know how will that play out. There's also FreeSync, which is AMD's answer to NVIDIA's G-Sync. They're more or less the same thing, I think AMD FreeSync might be better than NVIDIA G-Sync, but I do not have enough knowledge on that, as I don't have a monitor that supports such thing - I very much prefer strobing backlights since it gives me a sharper image (reduces LCD "blurry trail" effect), but that does not require any specific GPU.


Anyway, this post turned out to be way longer than I expected - do whatever you want with this information.

[Mikal]

Thanks for the help guys, that was a very good read Rid, honestly I think I'm moving more towards the Asus Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 (if you guys could let me know wether it'd be a good choice or not), I could really push for the GTX 970 but I'm not happy with the price, sure you get what you pay for, but I'm just looking for something that will allow me to play alot of games at medium (to high if I can) quality as I'm not a major graphics freak, now I'm onto CPU... If you guys think that the GTX 960 I posted above is good, what CPU would go nicely with it? Obviously something that will avoid any bottle necks and run nice and smoothly.

One more thing I'm confused about is water cooling, it sounds too complex for me and I'd be worried about it bursting a leak since my computer is left on alot even when I'm not using it, and in what ways can water cooling be used? For example, could I just water cool the CPU and have everything else cooling off normal fans? And how difficult is water cooling to install? If it's too much or would seem silly for a mid-range price build then I'm happy to leave it out and go with fans.

Thanks for the help!

Edit:
What exactly is the difference between these two? (apart from the price).

Gigabyte Nvidia Gtx 960 Windforce 2 OC PCI-E Graphics Card
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gigabyte-Nvidia-Windforce-PCI-E-Graphics/dp/B00SKTF83W/ref=sr_1_10?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1455498897&sr=1-10&keywords=GTX+960

Asus Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 Strix Direct CU II
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00UJLDVJC/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=2WWK4912KO1GN&coliid=I25TPV43QK2PB3&psc=1

[rid]

The Gigabyte 960 only has 2GB of VRAM and slightly lower core clock, which means slightly lower FPS. The 2GB of VRAM may give you issues as stated above.
The Asus 960 has 4GB of VRAM and slihgtly higher core clock when compared to Gigabyte one, which means slightly higher FPS.

They also have different output choices:
Gigabyte:

However you can't use all of them at the same time, the layout below will explain what outputs you use at the same time, if you plan on using more than one monitor:


Asus:

As you can see, it's pretty much like Gigabyte's second layout choice.

If I had to choose between these two, I'd personally go for the Asus 960, since it has 4GB of VRAM which plays a big role nowadays, as many games already go over 2GB.


I am not experienced on water cooling as all my builds so far were on air, so hopefully someone else will clear that out for you.


CPU wise, you have plenty of choices. You could go for Skylake or the slightly older Haswell, etc (if you go the Intel way). It all depends on your budget. I do not know enough about AMD CPUs so I cannot make any suggestions on that.

[brian1996]

The core clocks don't mean shit due to GPU Boost 2.0 going above it anyway depending on how good the cooler on the GPU is.
In regards to GPU choice. 2GB VRAM won't cut it in today's games and the 960 is kind of a entry level low tier card. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't able to properly run the next games coming end 2016 and just end up eating your invested money away.
Some clarification towards the 4GB VRAM issue on the GTX970.

Probably the best explanation regarding it.

If you're going for the 900 series line up there's basically only 2 cards to choose from when it comes to price to performance ratio and those are the GTX 970 and GTX 980Ti.
As for CPU, go with an i5-4690k or 4690 if you don't plan on overclocking.
In terms of cooling, I do have experience with water cooling. It's not hard to install unless you want to go completely overkill like I did , AIO liquid coolers are pretty reliable these days especially if you choose a trusted brand like Corsair.
But anyway, water cooling is a bit unnecessary especially if you don't plan on (major)overclocking, put your money into a good air cooler instead.
But it all depends on the budget which would be easier for me to configure an entire system for you.

[rid]

The core clocks do mean shit, while not as game-deciding as it was back when there was no GPU Boost technology, it still plays a role together with the cooling as you mentioned. There's a reason people can still OC without changing temp, power & voltage limits.
I do admit that the difference is very minimal between these two 960 models, probably not even 2-3fps of a difference, but higher is higher.

[AK47]

I'll file in a question aswell, I'm about to build a PC aswell since my Asus RoG laptop is a year old and I want a stationery one aswell, currently I've been looking at GTX 960, 970 or 980, which one should I go with if I'm going for the best one (prices are not an issue  ) And if I'm only are going to use it for gaming and nothing else, should I go with i5 or? (Laptop got i7)

[TiMoN]

I'll file in a question aswell, I'm about to build a PC aswell since my Asus RoG laptop is a year old and I want a stationery one aswell, currently I've been looking at GTX 960, 970 or 980, which one should I go with if I'm going for the best one (prices are not an issue  )

980 Ti($600ish) is the best out there, smashes Titans and 980s alike.

[Mikal]

Ok so I'm pretty much 100% decided on going for the Asus Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 due to the 4GB VRAM and the affordable price (£180), I prefer staying with Nvidia due to 'Geforce Experience' which I really like for it's simplicity, and then there's the PhysX which a game or two I play on uses, not forgetting Shadow Play which I also use quite a bit.

I remember having an AMD GPU on an older computer a couple years ago, sure alot has changed since then, but AMD always seemed a bit clunky to me, don't know why...

So now that I've decided on the Asus Nvidia GeForce GTX 960, what CPU would go nicely? Keep in mind I might upgrade from the 960 in the distant future and so a CPU that can handle a decent upgrade of the GPU (say, to the 980) would be good, and if that's too costly, then what would just work nicely together with the 960 alone? I'm all for saving money on this build whilst getting a big performance leap from what I'm currently using... Dat GTX 650.

Thanks!

I'll file in a question aswell, I'm about to build a PC aswell since my Asus RoG laptop is a year old and I want a stationery one aswell, currently I've been looking at GTX 960, 970 or 980, which one should I go with if I'm going for the best one (prices are not an issue  ) And if I'm only are going to use it for gaming and nothing else, should I go with i5 or? (Laptop got i7)

r u srs? If price is not an issue then of course you go for the 980 right?

Edit:

I'm stumped on computer cases... I have 2 I like so far.

1:

Spoiler for Hiden:

2:

Spoiler for Hiden:

[Janar]

I'll file in a question aswell, I'm about to build a PC aswell since my Asus RoG laptop is a year old and I want a stationery one aswell, currently I've been looking at GTX 960, 970 or 980, which one should I go with if I'm going for the best one (prices are not an issue  ) And if I'm only are going to use it for gaming and nothing else, should I go with i5 or? (Laptop got i7)

None from those. 980 Ti with a custom PCB and cooler (EVGA Kingpin card is weirdly overpriced, don't look there).
Personally I am getting EVGA 980 Ti Classified, but I can also recommend Gigabyte and MSI cards.

'Geforce Experience' which I really like for it's simplicity

Gave me quite some troubles, but I enjoy Shadowplay and automatic game settings detection.

So now that I've decided on the Asus Nvidia GeForce GTX 960, what CPU would go nicely? Keep in mind I might upgrade from the 960 in the distant future and so a CPU that can handle a decent upgrade of the GPU (say, to the 980) would be good, and if that's too costly, then what would just work nicely together with the 960 alone? I'm all for saving money on this build whilst getting a big performance leap from what I'm currently using... Dat GTX 650.

i5-6600k.

I'm stumped on computer cases... I have 2 I like so far.

1:

Spoiler for Hiden:

2:

Spoiler for Hiden:

This pretty much comes down to your personal taste as long as all parts fit inside :P

[Mikal]

Alright thanks, I will look into the i5-6600k!

Also found another case which I like...
I'm stuck on wether to get black/blue or white/black...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00NZI69JU?colid=2WWK4912KO1GN&coliid=I3HT2W9D3F97YY&psc=1&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl

This one also looks perfect for what I want, could probably fit a small liquid cooler on the back for cooling the CPU (removing the stock rear fan) and then have 2 intakes on the front with an exhaust fan on the top, sounds good to me atleast.

[Janar]

IMO single fan radiators are not worth it. They perform about the same or worse than cheaper, yet better, air coolers (Hyper 212 Evo, NH-D14/15, be quiet! etc). Aesthetics is another story though. If you are looking for some real cooling, either go with 240 or 280 all-in-one liquid cooler.

I personally use H110i GT, though it is on rather loud side. I would recommend a NZXT Kraken x61, if you're willing to go with 280mm (2x 140mm) radiator.

[brian1996]

I'll file in a question aswell, I'm about to build a PC aswell since my Asus RoG laptop is a year old and I want a stationery one aswell, currently I've been looking at GTX 960, 970 or 980, which one should I go with if I'm going for the best one (prices are not an issue  ) And if I'm only are going to use it for gaming and nothing else, should I go with i5 or? (Laptop got i7)

980Ti. If it's pure gaming go with an i5 as well unless money isn't an issue.

I personally use H110i GT, though it is on rather loud side.

I use the same one and I don't find it loud unless I turn on turbo jet engine mode with the 4 fans which to me sounds badass 24 degree peformance.
Also if you're using headphones, who cares about loudness right?