Skip to main content

Nvidia GeForce GTX 960: Maxwell In The Middle

2D And 3D CAD Performance

2D And 3D AutoCAD

Even simple consumer graphics cards hold their own, since Autodesk switched its entire suite to DirectX. We compare the 2D performance, which is similar across the board, and 3D performance, where Nvidia's graphics cards seem to hold the advantage. Overall, the results for the GeForce GTX 960 are acceptable to good.

Autodesk Fusion 2013

We’re completing a different task, but still using DirectX. The tables turn though, and the AMD graphics cards emerge as the victors. The reason is the difference in workloads compared to AutoCAD, with the present ones placing a higher demand on the graphics cards’ memory bus.

Autodesk Maya 2013

We’re exclusively using OpenGL and a complex model for our Maya 2013 rendering benchmark to show the difference to DirectX. In this scenario, the GeForce GTX 960 graphics cards have a clear advantage.

SPECViewperf 12

Since most applications in this suite are completely irrelevant for potential GeForce GTX 960 buyers, we decided to limit this test to more common applications. The results for Showcase 2013 look similar to those for Autodesk Fusion 2013, which is to say that AMD's graphics cards enjoy a decent lead. Showcase 2013 also uses DirectX.

Catia also puts AMD in front, either because of or in spite of OpenGL. These benchmarks make one thing abundantly clear yet again: the green or red win depends largely on driver optimization. This makes it hard to provide a true performance judgment.

In the end, these benchmarks serve as an always-welcome reminder the graphics cards stand and fall with their drivers.

  • Novuake
    This seems meh... Impressive but not phenomenal power consumption to performance numbers. Especially compared the GTX970/980.

    Would have liked to see two more things.

    1. More extensive AA. post processing and memory bandwidth testing. Pretty sure Nvidia hamstrung the card a bit in some scenarios with a 1280bit interface. I had to read it 4 times before I believed it and still am skeptical.

    2. Overclocking benchies.


    So otherwise I guess we are back to the "old" ti-designation setup where the GTX960ti SHOULD be based on GM206 and vanilla GTX960 is not.
    Reply
  • sconzen
    I may be blind, but I don't see the Zotax Amp! edition in the temperature and noise tests. Confirm?
    Reply
  • damric
    The R9 280 is the fast and cheap elephant in the room that was never mentioned in this review,
    Reply
  • Grognak
    Well, I'm not saying a 10% improvement on top of a reduced power consumption isn't nice, because it really is, however we're still quite far away from the 770. I suppose Nvidia has a card planned to fill the massive performance gap between the 960 and 970, one at 4Gb of VRAM maybe?
    Reply
  • ykki
    The damn arrows are STILL blocking the charts!
    Reply
  • sconzen
    I may be blind, but I don't see the Zotax Amp! edition in the temperature and noise tests. Confirm?
    Reply
  • ykki
    Great review.
    Now AMD, time to bust out the 270x!
    Reply
  • ykki
    Lol I meant the 370x!
    Reply
  • Novuake
    15117694 said:
    The damn arrows are STILL blocking the charts!

    I am not the only one! Thank you!
    Reply
  • ykki
    Novoake, I am very sorry but I stole your comment from an earlier review.
    But seriously, those arrows can block out the sun if tom's put 'em right.
    Reply