Solved

Does Asus GTX 960 Strix 4GB work on a 64-bit computer?

Does it? If not, does the MSI GTX 960 Gaming go on a 64-bit PC?
If not that either, well, does the 2GB versions go? And is the 4GB GPUs size different from the 2GB?
Sorry, a NOOB here haha! Thanks in advance!
5 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about asus gtx 960 strix 4gb work bit computer
  1. Best answer
    Yes, a graphics card will work on both 64 and 32 bit systems.

    The memory is all about what resolution you will run games at. 2GB is plenty for your occasional 1080x1920 resolution. Where as you would use a 4GB card for your multi screen or your 4K monitors.
  2. Personally, I view adding more than 2GB memory to the GTX 960 to be a marketing gimmick. The reference card has just 2GB for a reason: though the effective memory clock and color compression is high, it only has a 128-bit bus. That means it can only pull through so much information at a time, and this will limit your performance to where 4GB hardly makes a difference.

    You may want to consider saving a bit of cash by getting the 2GB Strix model, or by looking for an R9 290 or R9 285/R9 280X, which may give better performance at your price point assuming power and heat aren't issues.
  3. Unlike many like to believe that 128bit bus on 960 actually did not impact 960 performance at all. It has less bandwidth but what's more important is how effective the bandwidth were used. Compared to 280, 960 total bandwidth will look like a joke. But in real world performance 960 is ahead of 280.

    As for 4GB it might be a bit of gimmick but board partner will not going to let sales potential to slip. But sometimes i find it a bit funny in about this stuff. When comparing 960 and 280 some people will say that 280 will be better because it has more VRAM than 960 even if 960 actually a bit faster than 280. But when 960 4GB arrive they say it is useless because 960 are too weak to use that much VRAM. So 960 2gb is not futureproff because of lack of vram but then again 960 4gb was marketing gimmick. Haha.
  4. Might want to check your facts there... Tom's Hardware, in its review of the GTX 960, shows the R9 280X cleanly beating the 960. The R9 285 is neck and neck at most points, the R9 280 thus is slower. Note that I said 280X, not 280.

    Look, the 960 was never meant to be future proof. It was meant to be Nvidia's mid range offering for the Maxwell architecture, to hit the sweet spot in price for performance. It's not just the 2GB VRAM that makes the reference 960 limited in potential, but also the lesser bandwidth (slightly offset by high effective memory clocks) and relatively low CUDA core count, Nvidia put only enough cores in there to work with what the card has. If you're looking for a better card, the 970 is much better, having almost twice the effective ram and substantially more CUDA cores. Your want future resistant, the 980 is a great choice. Future proof? 980 ti. But don't expect a $210 budget-oriented card to move mountains or last longer than a few years.
  5. What fact need to be check? In my post i never mention 280X. And 960 128bit interface did not limit the card's performance in any way. And the futureproof talk actually i did not mean that myself. But many thread that involved 960 2gb talk a lot how future game will use more VRAM leading to some kind of conclusion that the 2gb on the card make it make it 'less futureproof'. Personally? I think talking about futureproof is quite useless.
Ask a new question

Read More

pc Computers X64 Go Asus Graphics Gtx MSI-Microstar