OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):120 W

ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition
4.7/10

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

40%

3.8

Technical score

25%

3.8

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.8

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 98% of graphics cards
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

1.9

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.5

Features

5%

7.0

Design

4%

7.9

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 95%
3.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models

3.8

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 96%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-geforce-gtx-960-directcu-ii-oc-black-edition
asus-geforce-gtx-960-directcu-ii-oc-black-edition
Where to buy
    N/A~ £180
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition

Based on 198 owners sharing their experience in online comments

73%positive10%mixed17%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and overclocking, while newer games expose its limited speed and VRAM.

What owners dislike

  • Newer demanding games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Witcher 3 often drop to around 30 fps unless settings are lowered or resolution reduced.22
  • The 2GB version runs out of video memory in newer games, causing stutter, crashes, or forced low textures; owners wished they had bought 4GB.6
  • Owners found it only a modest step up from older cards like the 660 Ti or 750 Ti, and it trailed the GTX 970 in speed.4
  • Some owners reported stutters, frame drops, and crashes after overclocking, though others said it ran stable with moderate overclocks.4
  • Owners reported temperatures reaching around 70–80°C under load in demanding games, with some cards running hotter than others in SLI.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

1.9

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.5

Features

5%

7.0

Design

4%

7.9

Connectivity

3.8
Reviews score
3.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

6.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,400 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,400 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 94.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
6,135 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 6,135 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 91.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,062 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,062 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 89.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.7 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.7 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 92% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
112.2 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 112.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 93.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,012 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,012 MHz, which is slower than that of 88.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
120 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 120 W, which is lower than that of 82.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
125 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 125 W under peak load, which is lower than 84.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
400 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 400 W PSU, which is lower than that of 90.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
120 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 120 W, which is lower than that of 85.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
120 W
Show more
Size
290x 147x 40 mm
Length
290 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 290 mm long, which is longer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Height
147 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 147 mm tall, which is taller than 90.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
601 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 601 g, which is lighter than 86.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2.89x cheaper
    ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition is cheaper than the average graphics card (£180 vs £520).
    £180 vs £520
  • 0.2% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,753 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,753 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (60 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    60 °C vs 67 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 46.4% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,342 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,342 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 47.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models

    3.8

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.8 vs 7.2
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 47.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models

    3.8

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.8 vs 7.2
  • 51.3% lower sentiment score
    3.8 vs 7.8
  • 20% worse value for money
    ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.18 vs 7.4).
    6.18 vs 7.41
  • 46.4% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,342 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,342 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 33.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,279 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,279 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 80.1% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (75.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    75.39 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 74.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (40.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    40.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 88.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    January 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 72.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (6,135 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    6,135 points vs 22,638 points
  • 83.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,400 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,400 points vs 14,779 points
  • 83.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.08 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 74.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,062 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,062 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 75% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (112.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    112.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 63.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,012 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,012 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 87.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,940 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,940 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2 vs 2.1a).
    2.0 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (2 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    2 vs 6
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 22 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (147 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    147 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
04/09/2024
Full review · game benchmarks, temperatures and fan tests
Verdict
ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition is a strong performer that stays cool and is well worth buying if you find it cheap.
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition

  • Whisper-quiet operation due to the 0dB fan technology which keeps fans off during low loads
  • Excellent thermal performance provided by the DirectCU II cooling system
  • Compact design that fits easily into small form factor (SFF) cases
  • Low power consumption with a thermal design power (TDP) of approximately 120W, requiring only a single 6-pin connector
  • Factory overclocked out of the box for a performance boost over reference models
  • High build quality featuring a protective and aesthetically pleasing backplate

What customers don't like about ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition

  • Limited VRAM (2GB on base models) which can struggle with high-resolution textures or 1440p gaming
  • Narrow 128-bit memory bus width that limits memory bandwidth compared to higher-end cards
  • Performance gains over the previous generation (GTX 760) are relatively minor
  • Price-to-performance ratio was often considered less favorable compared to the more powerful GTX 970 at launch

Verdict

The ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition is a factory-overclocked Maxwell-based graphics card featuring a core clock of 1279 MHz and a boost clock of 1342 MHz. Built on the 28nm GM206 architecture, it includes 1024 shading units and comes with either 2GB or 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with an effective speed of 7012 MHz. Its primary characteristics include the DirectCU II cooling system with CoolTech fan technology for 20% cooler performance and the Super Alloy Power 5-phase design for enhanced stability. Pros include excellent power efficiency with a 120W TDP requiring only a single 8-pin connector, quiet 0dB fan operation during light loads, and versatile connectivity with three DisplayPort 1.2, one HDMI 2.0, and one DVI-I output. Main cons are the narrow 128-bit memory bus which limits high-resolution bandwidth and the card's age, making it less suitable for modern AAA titles at ultra settings.

Compare ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC Black Edition and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found