is it worth me gtx 960 2gb on gtx 970 4gb ???

technically yes. because with 2 gigs of conductive current you can pickle cucumbers,
practically you need to change when you have a processor and the power supply unit will be rather weak, perhaps.

yes change) only change the percentage to i5 and not to 8320

NerdGeek
has already changed to 8320)

Andrew Praxis
but in vain, change to i5

Tell me it's worth changing the video card GIGABYTE GV-N960G1 GAMING-4GD, GTX 960, 4096MB, GDDR5 for the same series only GTX 970.prots i5-2500K 3.7Gz.

dr.basta87
The difference will be felt because, among other things, the bus is wider - 128-> 256 bits.

I have already read reviews about the tire. how much will it give an increase replacing one with another.

dr.basta87
I have already read reviews about the bus. how much will it give an increase replacing one with another.

I never cease to be amazed at how lazy (or stupid) people are. There are tons of tests on the net comparing the performance of video cards. Especially with regard to the latest generation models. Or do you not know how to look at charts and analyze numbers?
What is the point to a ton of topics where there are already answers to questions, to produce topics with the same questions?

If the question is "does the replacement make sense" - Yes.
"What gain will give" - ​​look at the tests and decide what gain, where and how acceptable it is.

Andrew Praxis wrote: is
it worth changing gtx 960 2gb to gtx 970 4gb ???
Of course it is, the difference is enormous.

Sit at 960 until the pascal comes out.

it makes sense to change to the 980, although the 970 will be useful too. As for the pro, I had to put fx-8350, it chases up to 4.7-4.8 easily, my 8350 normally pulls two 780s, they are faster than 960s each, so don't worry about the percentage, with normal vidyahy it will provide 60 fps in games

Yes, no, and I looked at the graphics and tests. Everywhere in different ways on reviews and tests. 970 is a little ahead. And I bought it in January of this year. Just wait there is an opportunity to buy 970. And then only 960 was enough.

Steve Taller
There is no difference in 8xxx fxs. The percentage of full feces even in overclocking 5GHz. Your 780s are idle, because they can't even take out one percent.

Kirill1998
yeah, you will tell me tales, almost all my games run at maximum speeds of 60 fps. Far Edge 4 after patches with MCAA8x I passed it perfectly, Shadow of Mordor, Dying Light, MGS Phantom Payne, Mad Max are doing fine, Crisis 3 too, and the cards there are loaded at all 98% with 8xMSAA, Watch Dogs 45-60 fps, but it is terribly crooked, GTA5 45-60 fps at maximum speed with 4x anti-aliasing. Tomb Ryder 2013 at maximum speed with a hairix in 1080p with anti-aliasing is stable at 60 fps and maps are loaded by 98%, Talos Principal loads vidyahi by 98% if you unscrew everything. Yes, in principle, the games are running fine, the percentages are rarely loaded above 50% and the cards, with rare exceptions above 70%, are not loaded and this is enough almost everywhere for stable 60 fps when the weak is working, given that I play with the always-on-sync in the drivers ... With a normal vidyahy this percentage easily gives an over 60 fps,

Steve Taller
It's not about loading maps, it's about fps.

Kirill1998
so I tell you that I have 60 fps almost everywhere and always, I can’t just say how it is on new games with Danuva, because I didn’t play, but judging by the data of gamegpu there amd 8350 behaves quite enough

Kirill1998
It's fun to read the opinion of a person who has never sat on the fx series)))

Slowery
I had enough experience with fx to understand what shit he is)

Kirill 1998
Strange. I have that 8320th in overclocking at 4.6GHz, that now I7 4790K the same number of FPS seems to be at r9 290x. Maybe your hands were to blame?

7Rain7
no one seems to argue that amd processes are weaker than Intel's ones, but they are quite enough and at a price they are quite acceptable