Will Relationship Counselling Help Us?
Regardless of how long you have been married, or the nature of your marital problems, marriage counselling can offer huge benefits to a married couple. Studies show that couples who receive therapeutic treatment are on average 70-80% better off than couples who don’t receive treatment (1). Even when your problems don’t seem that major or significant, marriage counselling can still benefit a couple striving to maintain a successful marriage – in fact Marriage Counselling is best commenced before conflict becomes entrenched. Nonetheless, Marriage Counselling can help to repair damaged marriages, or in cases where the parties don’t want to continue, can ease the process of separation.
The main benefits of marriage counselling to any marriage include:
- Improved Communication and Less Arguments
- Better Agreement or Consensus on Issues in the Marriage
- Restored Intimacy
- Renewed love, joy and hope.
HOW CAN MARRIAGE COUNSELLING IMPROVE OUR COMMUNICATION SKILLS?
One of the areas where marriage counselling can definitely benefit a married couple is in the arena of communication skills. Relationships are one of the most difficult things we attempt as humans and communicating with each other is one of the single most problematic areas for many married couples. Working with a marriage counsellor can help each partner to learn to more carefully listen to what is being communicated to them, to reflect that message back to their partner and to then carefully proceed to send their own message back to their spouse. This process is called “active listening”. It is one of the most effective communication techniques that can be taught by a marriage counsellor or psychologist because active listening results in more satisfying and rewarding interactions between partners (2).
An active listening conversation might sound something like this:
Greg: I have absolutely had it with George today! Nothing I say to him seems to make a difference to him and I’m tired of feeling like I am talking to a wall! (Expressing emotions, frustration and anger. Using “I” statements to claim his own emotions.
)
Susan: Sounds like you are really frustrated with George, and pretty upset too. What are you trying to talk to him about? (Reflecting back what Greg has said to her and asking for more information – showing interest.)
Greg: Yes I am totally frustrated with him! I have told him several times today that I need this order completed no later than tomorrow because a client has been waiting on it and he just keeps blowing me off. (Verifies that Susan received the message clearly and expanding on his feelings and the reasons behind them.)
Susan: I’m sorry it has been so frustrating. (Again verifying that she is receiving Greg’s message. Rather than offering solutions, Susan is instead just offering support and validation to Greg.)
As the conversation continues, each spouse will take turns offering their own message and letting it be verified by their partner before contributing their own message.
This form of communication takes more effort and may even take longer because it is “active” and does not allow us to jump forward to think about our own contribution until we have taken the time to verify the message we are receiving.
However, the tremendous benefit from using active listening as a communication skill is that it avoids misunderstandings, improves personal responsibility for emotions, allows for clearer messages to be sent and improves empathy. (This article is electronically protected – Copyright © Associated Relationship & Marriage Counsellors Sydney)
HOW CAN MARRIAGE COUNSELLING HELP US RENEGOTIATE OUR MARITAL AGREEMENTS?
Another benefit of marriage counselling is that it can be an opportunity to renegotiate marital agreements that were made in the past. Often, it can be difficult for a couple to approach marriage agreements (agreements about roles, responsibilities, finances, etc). Often these agreements have been reached at the beginning of a relationship at a time when we were younger and perhaps less experienced in life and in marriage. However, over time, our needs and desires may change and the role we were once comfortable in may become restrictive or uncomfortable.
A prime example of this is a spouse who has agreed to set aside their own career in order to raise a family, allowing the other spouse to focus their attention on being the primary breadwinner for the family. While the family is young, this may be an entirely comfortable and even enjoyable agreement. However, once the children grow older and begin to be more independent, either as teenagers or into early adulthood, the stay-at-home spouse may want to return to the workforce at least part time.
Approaching changing this agreement may be difficult because it may upset the family balance or financial arrangements. By working with a marriage counsellor, marriage agreements can be approached and renegotiated with the moderating force of the counsellor’s presence available. Additionally, they may be able to offer suggestions that may not have occurred to the couple that may ease the negotiations or the transition to a new agreement.
HOW DO WE RECONNECT AND RECOMMIT TO EACH OTHER?
One issue that couples may bring to marriage counselling is a desire to reconnect and recommit to their marriage.
If you have been married for a number of years, it can be challenging to come up with new and innovative ways to reconnect. Over time, we become settled in a rhythm and routine that may eventually become mundane and even boring. Several sessions with a marriage counsellor or psychologist can help a married couple look at each other with fresh eyes.
Very often a marriage counsellor will give weekly assignments to be completed between sessions to aid the process towards restored intimacy and reconnection. These assignments can be as simple as having a date night instead of eating at home every evening or as intimate as asking a couple to engage in sexual activities they might find exciting and imaginative. With a new vision of each other and increased feelings of intimacy and emotional commitment, a couple may feel more reconnected to each other and encourage them to recommit to their marriage. (This article is electronically protected – Copyright © Associated Relationship & Marriage Counsellors Sydney)
WHAT IS A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE COUNSELLOR?
At Associated Counsellors and Psychologists all therapists belong to professional associations that require high levels of education, supervision and demonstrated experience in the field of psychology.
Our associated therapists are all professionally insured. They are experienced working with married couples and meet the highest ethical standards. Our associates can assist with almost any issues that couples present, ranging from commitment issues to sexual difficulties to blended families.
If you and your spouse would like to meet with a qualified marriage counsellor or would like further advice, please feel free to contact Associated Relationship & Marriage Counsellors Sydney.
We welcome your enquiry.
ASSOCIATED RELATIONSHIP & MARRIAGE COUNSELLORS SYDNEY
TEL: (02) 8002 1020
Marriage Counselling across Sydney at:
Sydney CBD, Surry Hills, Bondi Junction, Glebe, Cremorne & at Gosford on the Central Coast.
References
- ￪1
Petch, J., Lee, J., Huntingdon, B., & Murray, J. (2014). Couple counselling outcomes in an Australian not for profit: Evidence for the effectiveness of couple counselling conducted within routine practice.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 35(4), 445-461. - ￪2
Pasupathi, M., Carstensen, L. L., Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Responsive listening in long-married couples: A psycholinguistic perspective. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, (23), 173-193.
From GTX 960 to RTX 3060
Table of contents
- Specs & Price
- EVGA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB XC
- 1080P & 1440P Benchmarks
- Averages
- Ray Tracing Benchmarks
- Power Consumption
- RTX 3060 vs. Previous 60 Series Cards – 1080p
- RTX 3060 vs. Previous 60 Series Cards – 1440p
- Performance On Older Systems
- Conclusion
It’s time for another GPU launch, and I know what’s probably going through your minds right now: This is yet again another graphics card that you just can’t buy.
Well we will just have to wait and see what the stock situation is like for the RTX 3060, but I’m just going to cross my fingers and hope that a miracle happens.
Anyways, just like our last GPU reviews, this article isn’t going to be a typical performance review because we know there is going to be plenty of them out there on the internet. I will be focusing on our usual benchmarks, but mainly I want to talk about what an upgrade path would look like for someone who is hanging on to an older card. The simple fact is that a lot of folks with 60 series cards just skipped over the RTX 2060. Even more than 4 years after it was released the GTX 1060 is still the #1 card based on the Steam Hardware Survey charts. But I also wanted to take a further step back by also talking about what the released of the RTX 3060 means for those of you who are still rocking a GTX 960 or GTX 970. Is it finally be time to step up?
Specs & Price
Before getting the benchmarks, let’s take go through the specs and discuss exactly what the RTX 3060 is all about.
It is significantly cut down from the RTX 3060 Ti, but I guess that is expected since it costs $70 less. The question is whether or not those cuts went too deep, but at least board power is only around 170W. One interesting thing is the 192-bit bus meant either 6GB or 12GB of memory. With AMD’s current and upcoming cards rocking huge memory sizes NVIDIA really couldn’t have this go down to 6GB, so the RTX 3060 has more memory than the RTX 3080. With a starting price of $330 USD there is no doubt that demand will be way higher than supply, even though NVIDIA is using algorithm detection to cut Ethereum mining hash rates in half.
I want to jump onto that right away because NVIDIA is claiming that they are cutting mining performance on the RTX 3060 to get this GPU into the hands of more gamers. That plan might work but there are two problems that I see with this. First is that they are actually penalizing gamers who want to mine with their GPU in their spare time, and second even at half the speed this GPU is still going to be turning a profit in under a year.
I don’t think this short-term solution will really do all that much.
EVGA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB XC
With that out of the way let’s talk about the EVGA card that we will be using here since this GPU was supposed to hit that sweet at $330 USD MSRP… technically… without crazy retailer markups. Now this is a pretty compact 8-inch GPU with a dual-slot heatsink, a single 8-pin power input, and thankfully it’s not one of those crazy designs EVGA has been pumping out lately. All-in-all it looks like a good in-place replacement or upgrade for literally any chassis. And that is important since some of the other 3060 cards that I have been seeing are ginormous.
The most important thing that we need to set here is a baseline to see how this card actually performs against other current generation GPUs. And to do that we are using our usual test system supporting the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, and since this is meant to bridge the 1080P and 1440P performance spaces both of those resolutions will be tested.
Onto the results.
1080P & 1440P Benchmarks
Let’s put this into a bit clearer perspective by looking at some averages. Overall at 1080P the RTX 3060 fits in the gap right between the RTX 2060 Super and the RTX 2070 Super, which is about what we would expect. Remember the RTX 3060 Ti took over from the RTX 2060 Super at the $400 USD price point ad it’s a good 30% faster. The RTX 3060 to RTX 2060 gap is about 20%, which is not all that much, and that is going to be a bit of a letdown to those RTX 2060 users that were going to look into upgrading to the RTX 3060.
Averages
At 1440P it’s pretty much the same too, and I have to to admit it came as a bit of a disappointment since we are so used to the RTX 3000 series delivering such massive uplifts versus the previous generation. But then again, it’s also important to remember that the RTX 3060 costs a good $20 less than the RTX 2060 did when it was launched. So there’s that.
Looking at things from a value perspective, the RTX 3060 delivers consistently good rates for its price. There is a super obvious linear increase here as well. You pay 20% more for the RTX 3060 Ti and get about 20% more performance. Also remember that we are going with launch prices and not the inflated madness that we are seeing right now. So basically everything that I just mentioned right now gets thrown out of the window if you end up overpaying for your GPU, which nobody should.
Ray Tracing Benchmarks
Meanwhile, raytracing performance is closer to the RTX 2070 Super, which was pretty much expected given the updates with second generation RT cores. Performance isn’t anywhere near regular rasterization, but at least there is a way to check out what all the fuss is about at playable frame rates.
Power Consumption
By using GA106 core NVIDIA has actually been able to cut down power consumption by quite a bit when compared to the RTX 3060 Ti, at least on the average consumption side.
But there is more to it than that, especially if you’re looking to upgrade an older system that might not have a super modern power supply. That is where RTX cards might cause a few headaches for GTX 900 and GTX 1000 series owners. If you look at the peak power number on this EVGA card it is a fair bit higher than its rated 170W TDP. If you have a good 500W PSU, then you should be just fine, but these numbers need to be taken into account before just assuming that an RTX 3060 is a drop-in upgrade. Also don’t forget that most if not all RTX 3060 cards need an 8-pin connector – they don’t come with an adapter – and since not all PSU’s from years ago come with one so that could be an additional expense.
I guess that brings me to the part that I’m sure a lot of you skipped to: The upgrade path for these cards. What kind of performance can you expect? Well we used the exact same system as before, and brought a few cards out of retirement like the GTX 1060 6GB, a GTX 970, and finally a GTX 960.
Now this lineup led both Mike and I into a conversation about the price creep of NVIDIA’s 60 series cards. Today the RTX 3060 is being launched at $330 USD, which might not seem like a lot when compared to the overpriced RTX 2060, but if you are coming from a GTX 1060 6GB from 4 years ago it’s a whole lot more to pay. And if you compare that to the GTX 960’s $200 our launch price, I think it drives that point home even more. The RTX 3060 is in a whole other price range. As a matter of fact, that is the same street price as the GTX 970 when that was launched.
RTX 3060 vs. Previous 60 Series Cards – 1080p
Now that the stage has been set, let’s go through this starting at 1080P. Also remember that these results were run at the highest detail levels, so turning down some of the settings will obviously allow some of the older cards to perform better. Either way it is pretty obvious that the GTX 960 simply can’t keep up with the other cards, mostly because of its 2GB memory size, which actually locks it out of playing some games at our settings.
The GTX 970 is pretty impressive given its age, and it’s a bit of a fair comparison to the RTX 3060. Both launched at the same price of $330 USD, and even though the GTX 970 ended up being a super controversial card it’s hard to complain about how well it’s holding up. The older cards do still handle themselves pretty well in online shooters by delivering a perfectly playable experience. I have to say though, that GTX 1060 is such an impressive card at 1080P, and you can see why people are still hanging on to them, but while the move from it to the RTX 2060 was tough to justify the RTX 3060 gets almost exactly double the performance.
RTX 3060 vs. Previous 60 Series Cards – 1440p
Moving from 1080P to 1440P shows where the real advantages for the newer cards are, especially with the new RTX 3060. If you’re still sitting at 1080P, the GTX 960 might be showing its age, but that is nothing a few lower settings won’t fix. If you want to make a jump to a high resolution monitor though, it’s just not going to cut it.
The GTX 970 fares a lot better, even with its odd memory layout of not quite 4GB, but even then jumping up to an RTX 3060 would give a night and day difference in visuals and frame rates. The funny thing is even here the GTX 1060 proves why it was one of the best GPUs NVIDIA has ever produced. It has aged like fine wine, but it does tend to run out of steam in some games here. It is now a laser targeted 1080P gaming card whereas the RTX 2060 is a lot more versatile for a wider range of resolutions. On the flip side, there is just no way I would upgrade from an RTX 2060 to this card, the benefits are just not worth it.
Performance On Older Systems
With the RTX 3060 delivering such high results against older cards on a modern system I’m sure a lot of you are probably wondering what happens when you simply drop this model into an existing PC. Would there be a CPU bottleneck or not? Well we have got you covered here as well with an upper mid-level system right out of 2015 that might have been paired up with a GTX 970 or GTX 960.
I already covered the CPU bottleneck on higher-end RTX 3000 GPUs, so these results were pretty much expected. At higher detail settings, even at 1080P, you will be giving up some performance for this GPU, especially in online shooters. Move to 1440P, which moves even more load to the GPU, and the gap narrows even further. This is good news for those with already decent CPUs because at least you can get a nice graphics performance upgrade while you wait for a larger system upgrade.
Conclusion
Well I guess that is pretty much everything that I wanted to cover in this review. I think my conclusion is pretty obvious: RTX 2060 owners have absolutely no reason to upgrade to the RTX 3060, this card isn’t for you. The RTX 3060 caters to the usual mid-range GPU upgrade cycle of between 3 to 4 years. People in this price bracket just aren’t looking to jump to a new card every other year, and in that case it does pretty well, but please just don’t end up paying scalper prices for one.
I hope you were able to take away something from this review, and best of luck buying one on or near launch day!
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don’t have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.
For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List
log 07. 01:53:37
#0 checking url part for id 6279 +0s … 0s
#1 checking url part for id 6311 +0s … 0s
#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s … 0s
#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Sun, 02 Oct 2022 17:27:15 +0200 +0.001s … 0.001s
#4 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.
044s … 0.044s
#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s … 0.047s
#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.047s
#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.047s
#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.047s
#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.047s
#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.047s
#11 composed specs +0s … 0.047s
#12 did output specs +0s … 0.047s
#13 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s … 0.047s
#14 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.03s … 0.077s
#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.077s
#16 getting avg benchmarks for device 6279 +0.001s … 0.078s
#17 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.078s
#18 got single benchmarks 6279 +0.008s … 0.086s
#19 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.
003s … 0.089s
#20 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.091s
#21 getting avg benchmarks for device 6311 +0s … 0.091s
#22 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.092s
#23 got single benchmarks 6311 +0.007s … 0.099s
#24 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s … 0.099s
#25 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.099s
#26 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.099s
#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.1s
#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.1s
#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.101s
#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.101s
#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.101s
#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.101s
#33 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.102s
#34 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.102s
#35 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s .
.. 0.102s
#36 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.102s
#37 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.103s
#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.103s
#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.103s
#40 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.103s
#41 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.103s
#42 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.104s
#43 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.104s
#44 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.104s
#45 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.104s
#46 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.104s
#47 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.105s
#48 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.105s
#49 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.105s
#50 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.106s
#51 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s .
.. 0.106s
#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.106s
#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.106s
#54 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.106s
#55 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.107s
#56 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.107s
#57 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.107s
#58 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.107s
#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.107s
#60 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.107s
#61 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.108s
#62 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.108s
#63 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.109s
#64 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.109s
#65 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.11s
#66 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.11s
#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.
001s … 0.111s
#68 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.111s
#69 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.112s
#70 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.112s
#71 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.112s
#72 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.113s
#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.113s
#74 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.113s
#75 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.114s
#76 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.114s
#77 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.114s
#78 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.115s
#79 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.115s
#80 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.115s
#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.115s
#82 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s .
.. 0.115s
#83 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.116s
#84 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.116s
#85 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.117s
#86 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.117s
#87 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.117s
#88 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.118s
#89 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.118s
#90 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.119s
#91 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.119s
#92 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.119s
#93 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.12s
#94 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.12s
#95 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.12s
#96 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.121s
#97 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.121s
#98 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s .
.. 0.122s
#99 min, max, avg, median took s +0s … 0.122s
#100 before gaming benchmark output +0s … 0.122s
#101 Got 500 rows for game benchmarks. +0.014s … 0.137s
#102 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s … 0.137s
#103 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.138s
#114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.139s
#128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.139s
#142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.
14s
#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#167 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.
141s
#170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#180 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.141s
#184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#190 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.141s
#198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.142s
#212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#213 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#219 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#225 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.142s
#226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#227 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.142s
#240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.142s
#254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#258 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.143s
#268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.143s
#282 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.143s
#296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#297 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#298 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#301 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#302 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#304 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#305 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#306 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#307 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.143s
#310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#312 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.144s
#324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.144s
#338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#339 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#341 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#343 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#344 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#346 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#347 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#348 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#349 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#350 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#351 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.144s
#352 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#353 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#354 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#355 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#356 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#357 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#358 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#359 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#360 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.144s
#361 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#362 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#363 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#364 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#365 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.145s
#366 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#367 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#368 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#369 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#370 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#371 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#372 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#373 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#374 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#375 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#376 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#377 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#378 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#379 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.145s
#380 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#381 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#382 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#383 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#384 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#385 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#386 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#387 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#388 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#389 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#390 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#391 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#392 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#393 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.145s
#394 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#395 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#396 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#397 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#398 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#399 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#400 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#401 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#402 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#403 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#404 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#405 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#406 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#407 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.145s
#408 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#409 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.145s
#410 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#411 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#412 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#413 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#414 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#415 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#416 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#417 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#418 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#419 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#420 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#421 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.146s
#422 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#423 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#424 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#425 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#426 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#427 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#428 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#429 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#430 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#431 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#432 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#433 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#434 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#435 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.146s
#436 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#437 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#438 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#439 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#440 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#441 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#442 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#443 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#444 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#445 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#446 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#447 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#448 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#449 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.146s
#450 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#451 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#452 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#453 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#454 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#455 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s
#456 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#457 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#458 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#459 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#460 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#461 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#462 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#463 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.147s
#464 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#465 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#466 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#467 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#468 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#469 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#470 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#471 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#472 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#473 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#474 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#475 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#476 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#477 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.147s
#478 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#479 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#480 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#481 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#482 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#483 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#484 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#485 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#486 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#487 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#488 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#489 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#490 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#491 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.147s
#492 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#493 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#494 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#495 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#496 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#497 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#498 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#499 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#500 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#501 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#502 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#503 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s
#504 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#505 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.148s
#506 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#507 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#508 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#509 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#510 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#511 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#512 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#513 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#514 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#515 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#516 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#517 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#518 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.148s
#519 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.
002s … 0.15s
#520 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.041s … 0.191s
#521 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s
#522 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s
#523 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s
#524 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.191s
#525 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s
#526 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s
#527 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s
#528 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.192s
#529 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s
#530 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s
#531 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s
#532 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s … 0.195s
#533 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.195s
#534 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s
#535 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s
#536 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.196s
#537 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.196s
#538 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.196s
#539 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.196s
#540 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.197s
#541 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s
#542 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s
#543 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s
#544 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.199s
#545 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.199s
#546 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.199s
#547 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .
.. 0.199s
#548 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s … 0.201s
#549 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.201s
#550 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.201s
#551 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.202s
#552 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.202s
#553 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.202s
#554 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.202s
#555 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.202s
#556 benchmarks composed for output. +0.002s … 0.204s
#557 calculated avg scores. +0s … 0.204s
#558 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.205s
#559 return log +0.002s … 0.207s
Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX450 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX450 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support.
Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
NVIDIA GeForce MX450
versus
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
Benefits
Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce MX450
- Newer video card, 5 year(s) 6 month(s) approx. MHz vs 1127 MHz
- 34% faster core clock in Boost mode: 1575 MHz vs 1178 MHz
- 1400x faster texturing speed: 100.
8 GTexel/s vs 72 billion / sec 912 nm vs 28 nm MHz vs 7.0 GB/s - About 34% more performance in Geekbench — OpenCL benchmark: 27861 vs 20858
- About 1% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) benchmark: 3710 vs 3691
- About 1% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) benchmark: 3354 vs 3335
- About 1% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) benchmark: 3710 vs 3691
- Benchmark performance GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) about 1% more: 3354 vs 3335
| Release date | 1 Aug 2020 vs 22 January 2015 |
| Core frequency | 1395 MHz vs 1127 MHz |
| Boost core clock | 1575 MHz vs 1178 MHz |
| Texturing speed | 100. 8 GTexel/s vs 72 billion/sec |
| Process | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 120 Watt |
| Memory frequency | 10002 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 27861 vs 20858 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 vs 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 vs 3335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 vs 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 vs 3335 |
Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
- 14% more shader processors: 1024 vs 896
- Approximately 62% more performance in PassMark — G3D Mark benchmark: 6029 vs 3719
- About 14% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 benchmark — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7218 vs 6326
- GFXBench 4.0 benchmark performance — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) approx. 14% more: 7218 vs 6326
- Performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score about 6% better: 2293 vs 2156
in PassMark -20 benchmark Mark 2.
3 times more: 673 vs 296
| Number of shader processors | 1024 vs 896 |
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 6029 vs 3719 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 673 vs 296 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7218 vs 6326 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7218 vs 6326 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 2293 vs 2156 |
Benchmark comparison
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX450
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
| PassMark — G3D Mark |
|
|||
| PassMark — G2D Mark |
|
|||
| Geekbench — OpenCL |
|
|||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|||
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|||
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|||
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|||
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|||
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score |
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce MX450 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 3719 | 6029 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 296 | 673 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 27861 | 20858 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
6326 | 7218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 | 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6326 | 7218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 | 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3335 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 2156 | 2293 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
73.733 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 792.44 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.888 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.338 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 200.825 |
Performance comparison
| NVIDIA GeForce MX450 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2. 0 |
| Codename | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | GM206 |
| Production date | 1 Aug 2020 | 22 January 2015 |
| Place in the ranking | 432 | 373 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Price at first issue date | $199 | |
| Price now | $229.99 | |
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 34. 63 |
|
| Boost core clock | 1575 MHz | 1178MHz |
| Core frequency | 1395 MHz | 1127 MHz |
| Process | 12nm | 28nm |
| Number of shaders | 896 | 1024 |
| Texturing speed | 100.8 GTexel/s | 72 billion / sec |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Number of transistors | 4700 million | 2,940 million |
| Number of CUDA conveyors | 1024 | |
| Floating point performance | 2. 413 gflops |
|
| Video connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| HDCP | ||
| Maximum resolution VGA | 2048×1536 | |
| Multi-monitor support | ||
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Additional power connectors | None | 1x 6-pins |
| Tire | PCI Express 3. 0 |
|
| Height | 4.376″ (11.1 cm) | |
| Length | 9.5″ (24.1 cm) | |
| Recommended power supply | 400 Watt | |
| SLI support | 2x | |
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| Shader Model | 6. 5 |
|
| Vulcan | ||
| Maximum memory size | 2GB | 2GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.03 GB/s | 112GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory frequency | 10002 MHz | 7.0 GB/s |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay |
Comparative review of Palit GeForce GTX 960 4GB (NE5X960010G1-2061J) and GTX 960 2GB (NE5X960T1041-2060J)
Today we will return to the consideration of the GeForce GTX 9 video card60, we will put two questions and give an answer to them.
First: does it make sense to overpay for an additional 2 GB of graphics memory? Second: what is more important: the level of factory overclocking or additional 2 GB of memory at an equal cost? Solutions from Palit, one manufacturer and one series were selected as test subjects. I tested the Palit GeForce 960 2GB Super JetStream (NE5X960T1041-2060J) video card in February last year, after this time it has not lost its relevance. Palit GeForce GTX 960 JetStream 4GB (NE5X960010G1-2061J) was released later, today we will recall the details using her example.
As part of this test, the testing methodology was changed to improve the visual perception of the material and a more visual comparison. The data collected earlier on the entire Radeon and GeForce model line will not be used further, this is also due to the update of the test bench to the Skylake-S platform, the Intel Core 6600K chip in overclocking mode to 4600 MHz and the amount of RAM doubled to 32 GB.
Compare Palit GTX 960 2GB or 4GB
Package Contents
The video card is delivered in a massive package with a spectacular design and a handle for transportation. Only general technical information is shown on the inside of the cover.
The Palit GeForce GTX 960 JetStream 4GB bundle includes an adapter to D-Sub with DVI, a power adapter with MOLEX, a software disk and instructions.
Appearance
Externally, the 2 and 4 GB versions do not differ, the same air cooling system with a red metal casing is installed.
Two fans with white illumination and a mode of complete shutdown of revolutions in the absence of load.
There is no reinforcing plate in the design. But, the Palit GeForce GTX 960 JetStream 4GB has increased the length of the printed circuit board, the 2GB version has a metal plate in this zone.
Power is supplied through one 6-pin connector.
Two DVI, one DisplayPort, one HDMI are output to the rear panel. All connectors can be used at the same time.
PCB
The design of the printed circuit board is generally similar, as is the layout of the elements. The question remains open on the advisability of increasing the length of the board for Palit GeForce GTX 960 JetStream 4GB, despite the fact that the elements are soldered here, visually they do not have contact lines with the main part of the board.
The differences lie in the amount of soldered Samsung graphics memory chips, the number remains the same.
Test
It is important to note that Palit GeForce 960 2GB Super JetStream boasts the best factory overclocking level: 1279 MHz core, 7200 MHz.
The tested Palit GeForce GTX 960 JetStream 4GB is overclocked to 1127 MHz for the core and 7000 MHz for memory. For the purity of the results obtained, manual overclocking was not carried out. Let’s start with synthetic tests.
3DMark11
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme
The 2 GB version is expected to outperform the 4 GB version with a lower frequency. How will things be in games?
Crysis 3
Metro LL
Hitman Absolution
GTA 5
Assassins Creed Syndicate
FarCry 4
The Crew0947
The Full HD resolution used does not run out of memory for the GTX 960 core in most scenes at ultra graphics settings.
The extra memory is starting to come in handy in rich pictures and dynamic scenes with lots of objects. This applies to both new and old games. The extra 2 GB will also come in handy in long game battles, insuring the owner from drawdowns and activating anti-aliasing. The difference should be greater when playing with 2K monitors.
In order to see the difference in volume, the Palit GeForce GTX 960 JetStream 4GB video card was overclocked by an additional 200 MHz both in memory and in the core. There is already an expected increase in synthetic tests and games.
3DMark11
3DMARK Fire Strike Extreme
Crysis 3
GTA 5
9000 TOM CLANE THE DIVISION0002
But don’t forget that the Palit GeForce 960 2GB Super JetStream also has the potential for further manual overclocking, which was not carried out earlier in the tests.
What to choose — Palit GeForce 960 Super JetStream 2GB or JetStream 4GB?
What do you prefer in the end, additional memory or improved factory overclocking? In this question, my choice is Palit GeForce 960 Super JetStream 2GB, it does not require additional actions from the user, initially squeezing the maximum out of the GTX 9 core60. The Palit GeForce GTX 960 JetStream 4GB option is suitable for those who are ready for additional overclocking, here, at an equal cost, an additional 2 GB will not be superfluous. Both graphics cards successfully passed all tests and provided an acceptable FPS level in modern games, without noise and failures during operation.
GeForce GTX 960 vs. Radeon R9 285
Mid-range graphics cards are always the focus of attention. Trying to get the best price / performance ratio, many users are ready to scrupulously study all the features and competitive advantages of new products before buying, comparing them with the performance of alternative options offered for about the same money.
Fortunately, in the heat of competition, AMD and NVIDIA, releasing new products, always leave an intrigue. This time we decided to evaluate the capabilities of classmates in the middle weight — GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon R9 285, which are now available in retail for about $230-250.
Zmist
- 1 GeForce GTX 960
- 2 Radeon R9 285
- 3 VS.
- 4 ASUS STRIX GTX 960 OC 2GB
- 5 ASUS STRIX R9 285 OC 2GB
- 6 Performance
- 7 And if you overclock?
- 8 Let’s take a chance with 2560×1440?
- 9 What is the consumption?
- 10 Results
- 10.1 Video cards for testing provided by TechnoPark, www.technopark.ua
GeForce GTX 960
GeForce GTX 960 video cards were introduced only a month and a half ago, but have already gained some popularity. The history of this product is quite ordinary. This model replaced the GeForce GTX 760. In the process of a planned lineup update, NVIDIA offered this solution, equipped with a GM206 chip with an energy-efficient Maxwell architecture.
We have already familiarized ourselves with the capabilities of the GeForce GTX 960 in sufficient detail. In general, the product turned out to be interesting, but it caused a not so unambiguous user reaction, mostly due to high expectations. Many are already accustomed to the fact that with the release of the next generation of middle-class adapters, they are noticeably ahead of their predecessors and are offered at about the same price. However, this time NVIDIA took a different approach when developing the update. GeForce GTX 960 turned out to be only slightly more productive than the GeForce GTX 760, but significantly more economical, with some functional innovations and a recommended price of $199 (alas, in the US market).
course
UI/UX Design
REGISTER!
Not everyone appreciated this approach of the developer. Especially owners of video cards of the previous generation. It is unlikely that anyone will change their GeForce GTX 760, and there is no particular reason to upgrade the GeForce GTX 660 Ti either.
Some quantitative indicators in the technical characteristics of the GeForce GTX 9 added fuel to the fire60. First of all, this, of course, is the notorious 128-bit memory bus, which made many numerologists who revere the code of large numbers worry. Yes, a line with such a bit depth does not look very convincing, but the Maxwell architecture provides for certain improvements in the operation of the memory controller, as well as fundamentally new color compression algorithms that make it possible to manage less bandwidth. Even in the specification, the developer separately emphasizes that Maxwell is a third more efficient in working with memory than Kepler. Yes, and local RAM chips operate at 7010 MHz. In this case, it is clear that the manufacturer has taken certain steps to compensate for the relatively low throughput, in the end it is performance that matters, not the way it is achieved.
Questions were also caused directly by the amount of local memory. The stock version of the GeForce GTX 960 is offered with 2 GB of high-speed GDDR5.
In general, for the 1920×1080 mode, this buffer capacity is often enough, but there are already exceptions and their number continues to grow. In the case of the GeForce GTX 960, this is fixable. Manufacturers have already begun to announce their modifications of adapters with double the memory capacity. However, 4 GB video cards will cost noticeably more. According to optimistic forecasts, you will have to pay about $30 extra. Taking into account the fact that in Ukraine the retail prices of the GeForce GTX 960 even on a 2 GB model is noticeably higher than recommended, the opportunity to purchase a 4 GB model can only be taken with restrained optimism. At a price of, for example, $300, such a purchase will lose its original attractiveness.
The strength of the GeForce GTX 960 is, of course, the improved efficiency of the graphics card. The TDP of the adapter is only 120W, so manufacturers usually use one 6-pin 12V connector to connect additional power.
Radeon R9285
The Radeon R9 285 was introduced late last summer.
It was with this adapter that AMD intended to hold back the onslaught of the GeForce GTX 760, which had gained popularity. The appearance of the Radeon R9 285 suggested itself for quite a long time. Prior to its appearance, the Radeon R9 280 and Radeon R9 280X video cards had to close the middle class segment. Very successful developments of the manufacturer, which, by and large, are upgraded versions of the Radeon HD 7950/7970, introduced back in 2012. At that time, these were top solutions, two years later, with slight modifications, they successfully migrated to the middle price segment. However, in a good way, the “heavy” legacy of older models makes itself felt. Still, these are not the most economical devices with a large GPU and a 384-bit memory bus, which of course turns out to be appropriate in any case, but complicates the layout without leaving room for price maneuver, which is very desirable when playing in the middle class. In addition, these adapters are equipped with 3 GB of memory, which also does not allow reducing the cost below a certain limit.
With the Hawaii-based Radeon R9 290/290X graphics cards already at its disposal, AMD took advantage of previous and current generations of devices to develop a new mid-range solution. As a result, the Radeon R9 285 is based on the 28nm Tonga Pro chip, which in terms of quantitative characteristics has a similar set to that of the Radeon R9 280 (computers, texture units, rasterizers), but uses the updated GCN 1.1 architecture, an improved PowerTune operating parameter adjustment mechanism and an updated video decoder with the ability to transcode H.264 at 4K resolution (this is not even in R9290/290X). In addition, this model also received a built-in DSP coprocessor from current flagships to support AMD TrueAudio technology, allows you to organize a CrossFire bundle without a special bridge, and is ready to connect monitors with FreeSync technology, which allows you to get rid of synchronization artifacts. And, of course, support for the proprietary API Mantle and DirectX 12 has not gone away.
Radeon R9 285 received a 256-bit bus. Yes, there is nostalgia for 384-bit, but in general, for its class, such a bit depth also does not look like a bad decision. As standard, the video cards are equipped with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory operating at 5500 MHz. Initially, it was assumed that video card manufacturers would be able to equip their devices with twice as much memory, but in practice it did not come to that. All modifications of video cards offered on the market are equipped with 2 GB of local RAM.
The TDP of the graphics card is 190W, just slightly less than the Radeon R9 280 (200W). Significant progress was not achieved here, especially considering that the video card has a smaller amount of memory and a smaller bus width.
In general, the Radeon R9 285 was originally introduced as a replacement for the Radeon R9 280, but the latter is still in the manufacturer’s range and there are no signs that they will soon be sent to a well-deserved rest.
VS.
In the current configuration of graphics solutions from both manufacturers, GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon R9 285 are direct competitors. AMD was preparing an opponent for the GeForce GTX 760, but in the current conditions, when it is obvious that this model will be replaced by the GeForce GTX 960, the opponent for the Radeon R9 285 is precisely the new NVIDIA.
| GeForce GTX 960 |
Radeon R9 285 |
|
| Crystal name | GM206 | Tonga Pro |
| Manufacturing process, nm | 28 | 28 |
| Chip area, mm² | 228 | 366 |
| Number of transistors, billion | 2.94 | 5 |
| GPU clock frequency, MHz | 1126+ | 918 |
| Number of Stream Processors | 1024 | 1792 |
| Number of texture units | 64 | 112 |
| Number of ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| Memory (type, volume), MB | GDDR5, 2048/4096 | GDDR5, 2048 |
| Memory bus bit | 128 | 256 |
| Effective memory clock frequency, MHz | 7010 | 5500 |
| Memory bandwidth, GB/s | 112. 2 |
176 |
| TDP W | 120 | 190 |
We decided to evaluate the capabilities of Radon R9 285 and GeForce GTX 960 using ASUS STRIX series adapters as an example. To a greater extent, we are interested in the balance of power directly between AMD and NVIDIA solutions, while specific models are a special case. However, the devices used for experiments are bright representatives of their lines.
ASUS STRIX GTX 960 OC 2GB
The capabilities of this adapter are already well known to us, those who wish can familiarize themselves with a detailed review of this model. We only note that this is an original modification of the GeForce GTX 960, equipped with a DirectCu II cooler with automatic fan shutdown technology during minimal load.
The working frequency formula of the chip and memory has been improved. Instead of the recommended 1126 MHz, the base frequency of the GPU is 1253 MHz (+11%).
The memory runs at 7200 MHz, while for the reference GTX 960 standard value is 7010 MHz. The difference is only 2.7%, but this is already a nice bonus, since most models do not have factory overclocked memory.
The 2-word model is extremely compact, measuring only 210 mm in length. One 6-pin connector is provided for connecting additional power.
ASUS STRIX R9 285 OC 2GB
ASUS has two versions of the Radeon R9 285 in its range, both of which belong to the STRIX line. One of them has recommended chip/memory frequencies (918/5500 MHz), the second one is somewhat boosted — 954 MHz for the GPU. The frequency increase is small and fits into 3%, but even this smallness formally already allows the manufacturer to use the “OS” index in the model designation.
External resemblance to the GeForce GTX 960 model is certainly visible, but this video card is almost one and a half times larger than the device with a chip from NVIDIA. The adapter received a much more massive radiator block of a special DirectCu II modification.
In this case, three heat pipes are used, and one of them has a diameter of 10 mm, another pair — 8 mm. The design is blown by two fans with a diameter of 100 mm. In general, the cooling system of the Radeon R9285 is noticeably more efficient and bulkier.
Belonging to the STRIX series automatically means that the cooling system goes into passive mode as soon as the GPU temperature drops to a certain level. The fans do turn off unless the chip gets hotter than about 60 degrees. It should be noted that for Radeon R9 285 video cards, a cooler with this option is a pleasant exception. If most of the original GeForce GTX 960 models already offer such an opportunity, then for devices based on the Tonga Pro chip, this is a curiosity.
In general, the operation algorithm of the ASUS STRIX R9 285 OC 2GB cooling system is set up very tolerant of silence lovers. In the conditions of an open bench, the GPU at its peak warmed up under load to 73 degrees, while the spindle speed increased to about 1350 rpm.
It is already possible to catch the rustle of the blades, but everything is within very reasonable limits.
The video card has a two-slot layout and dimensions that allow it to be placed in almost any case. To connect additional power, two 6-pin connectors with an LED system for indicating the connection of power lines are provided.
Only the essentials are included with the adapter — a manual, a CD with drivers and software, and an adapter from a pair of Molex to a single 6-pin connector.
Video card length 270 mm. The dimensions are quite acceptable for a device of this class, but against the background of a 210-mm crumb GTX 960, it looks monumental.
Performance
When comparing performance, the video cards worked in normal mode. However, taking into account the fact that in both cases we are dealing with modified adapters, we also measured conditionally reference GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon R9 285 with recommended frequencies. This will allow us to evaluate the ratio of forces of devices without additional frequency pumping.
In tests from Futuremark, the situation is generally predictable. The already old 3DMark 11 favors the GTX 960, while in the more technologically advanced 3DMark (simply 3DMark), the Radeon R9 285 has an almost 10% advantage in the reference and minimally bypasses the adapter with the NVIDIA chip after the ASUS factory settings.
In both test applications from UNIGINE we see an identical picture. When frequencies are reduced to reference values, a video card with an AMD chip has an advantage of 3–5%, which is leveled by the video card manufacturer. Out of the box devices show identical performance. Curiously, we don’t see GeForce GTX 9 drawdowns60 in the Valley Benchmark, where memory bandwidth matters a lot. NVIDIA «compensators» work here, and a device with a 128-bit bus is not lost against the background of an adapter with a 256-bit bus between the memory and the GPU.
The situation in Sleeping Dogs, Metro: Last Light and Bioshock Infinite is generally similar: a minimal advantage (0.
5-2.7%) of the Radeon R9 285 at the recommended frequencies for the reference adapters and equal or slight advantage of the GTX 960 after adjustment frequencies by the graphics card manufacturer.
Total War: Rome II clearly favors the NVIDIA adapter. + 10% in the base and almost + 16% after frequency adjustment — this is already almost noticeable to the eye.
In GRID Autosport the situation is similar, but less pronounced. The GeForce GTX 960 has a 6-9% advantage.
In Battlefield 4, albeit within the measurement error, the Radeon R9 285 behaves a little more lively. 13% at reference frequencies — a convincing lead over the competitor. Due to the greater specific weight of the “OS” index, the adapter on the GM206 manages to reduce the gap to 9%, but this stage is definitely not for the NVIDIA device. By the way, the activation of the Mantle API available in the Thief game did not bring any special dividends to the Radeon R9 285. At least, they could not be caught according to the results of the built-in benchmark.
Alien: Isolation is a clear example of how the scales can swing in different directions. Here is a convincing advantage for the GeForce GTX 960.
And if you overclock?
The new GM206 graphics processor is very willing to work at higher frequencies. This is one of the reasons why graphics card manufacturers hardly adhere to NVIDIA’s recommendations when setting higher frequency thresholds for GPUs. The recommended base frequency of the chip is 1126 MHz, while most of the original GeForce GTX 9 models60 starting values for the GPU exceed 1200 MHz. For ASUS STRIX GTX 960 OC, this is 1253 MHz.
As practice shows, with independent overclocking, the base value of the GPU frequency can usually be increased to 1350–1400 MHz. At the same time, if the video card has an efficient cooling system, this allows the GPU Boost 2.0 mechanism to dynamically additionally overclock the processor to 1500–1550 MHz. Memory at base 7010 MHz usually works stably at 7600-8000 MHz.
For ASUS STRIX GTX 9 Test Unit60 OC managed to get the final 1372/7700 MHz . The frequency increase for the chip is 21.8%, for the memory — 9.8%.
For the more complex Tonga Pro chip, the frequencies familiar to the GM206 are not available. The starting value is 918 MHz. At the same time, we recall that in the case of AMD solutions, this is not the base, but the maximum value at which the GPU operates when all specified conditions (temperature, voltage, consumption) are met. Under load, it can decrease in a certain range. For tuned versions, video card manufacturers do not significantly increase the maximum chip frequency — up to 930-970 MHz, that is, only 2-6%. The rest is at the discretion of the owner of the adapter. Typical values that can be achieved in the course of experiments are 1050–1100 MHz. As you can see, the actual frequency of Tonga Pro is almost one and a half times lower than that of the GM206. Obviously, its performance per megahertz is higher, but here each manufacturer uses its own methods — the end result is important.
Radeon R9 285 memory is accelerated to 6000-6500 MHz depending on the chips used.
Existing ASUS STRIX R9285 OC went to 1060/6100 MHz , i.e. +15.5% for the chip and +10.9% for the memory. In this case, we are rather interested in non-absolute frequencies, which may differ not only within the same line, but also from an instance of the same model. Here, the general situation with overclocking and its impact on the final performance is more interesting.
The test results after additional overclocking are presented in the general diagrams (columns above the dotted line). In the general case, even after the afterburner of both video cards, the balance of forces remains approximately at the same level. A small exception, perhaps, can be considered Battlefield 4, in which the GeForce GTX 960, after overclocking, we managed to minimally bypass the Radeon R9 285. If we take the performance of devices in modes with reference frequencies as a starting point, then manual afterburner can bring a 10-15% performance increase.
The performance of the Radeon R9 290 and GeForce GTX 970 is approximately 40-60% higher than that of the models under consideration, therefore it is important to understand here that neither the GeForce GTX 960 nor the Radeon R9 285 pretend to switch to another class of devices after overclocking.
Let’s take a chance with 2560×1440?
Yes, the number of pixels increases by 78% compared to that for the 1920×1080 mode, yes, situations in which the installed 2 GB of memory will no longer be enough to store data will also happen much more often, but this is not a reason not to take appropriate measurements.
In tests by UNIGINE, permanent interleaving was replaced by a more persistent advantage of the Radeon R9 285, and for reference frequencies this is already 7–10%.
Noticeably increased gap Radeon R9285 and in Sleeping Dogs. Performance drops when going to 2560×1440 performance dropped very significantly, but the response is less significant than in the case of the GeForce GTX 960.
The GeForce GTX 960 handles Metro: Last Light tunnels slightly better, although the Radeon R9 285 is slightly behind.
The ratio of forces in Bioshock Infinite is practically unchanged — the forces are approximately equal, except that the Radeon R9 285 has already managed to nominally come out ahead, offering 1 frame / s more.
The situation with Total War: Rome II has not changed after the transition to a higher resolution, the video card with the NVIDIA chip still looks better in the game.
The situation is similar in the game GRID Autosport.
The Radeon R9 285 marginally improved its positions in Battlefield 4, if we can talk about the situation when video cards provide a little more than 30 frames / s. You definitely can’t do without a decrease in the quality of graphics in network modes on large maps.
Thief and Alien: Isolation give opposite results. It’s easier to steal a valuable thing with impunity, armed with a Radeon R9 285, while owners of the GeForce GTX 960 will feel a little more comfortable in the society of «strangers».
The decrease in performance is very significant, up to the loss of playability. Using this mode for a system with a GeForce GTX 960/Radeon R9 285, you will need to be very selective in choosing games, or, alternatively, abandon modes with maximum graphics quality.
What is the consumption?
The difference in actual power consumption between systems equipped with the GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon R9 285 is approximately the same as the difference in the declared thermal values of the graphics cards.
TDP for GeForce GTX 960 — 120W, for Radeon R9 285 — 190W. In practice, under gaming load, we got a delta of 60-70 watts. After overclocking both devices, the difference increased. An adapter with a GM206 chip is much more economical. This is an undeniable advantage of the NVIDIA solution. The ability to save on electricity is secondary here. The lower level of power consumption allows the use of more compact shapes and dimensions of both the adapters themselves and the cooling systems.
Manufacturers are also more willing to equip low-cost graphics cards with coolers that turn off fans when idle. Although, as you can see, there are exceptions here for the Radeon R9285.
Results
Evaluating the results of both participants of the conducted «versus», we can say that we actually have two equivalent devices. Yes, each of them has its own characteristics and functional nuances, however, summarizing the data obtained, this is precisely the conclusion that suggests itself. Both NVIDIA and AMD are very adept at using hybrid price war tactics by arranging their product lines and setting the cost of their adapters in such a way that a similar competitor’s solution is offered at about the same price. Both players refuse to use such user-friendly dumping maneuvers. As a result, GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon R9 285 now cost exactly what potential owners are willing to pay for them. These are quite suitable solutions that can provide a comfortable level of performance in games with high graphics quality in 1920×1080 mode.
When the resolution is increased to 2560×1440, the balance of power between the two video cards remains virtually unchanged. The assumption that the GTX 960 with a 128-bit bus will noticeably lose ground in this case is not confirmed. In such a situation, the Radeon R9 has a minimal advantage.285, but in general, neither one nor the other video card allows you to get an acceptable number of frames / s at a resolution of 2560 × 1440 without reducing the quality of the picture. Don’t rely too much on overclocking. 10-15% is not the productivity gain that will allow you to radically change the situation. Yes, in some cases additional frames / c will be appropriate, but nothing more. For this mode, video cards of a higher class are required.
In general, we have a situation in which even an emotional purchase under the influence of personal preferences will ultimately be fully justified. GeForce GTX 960 and Radeon R9 285 proved to be worthy rivals, which allow fans of AMD and NVIDIA to break a lot of copies in the debate about which graphics card is better.