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

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):120 W

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 19 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960
5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 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 92% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 92% of graphics cards
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 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 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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 96% of models
Score components

44%

1.9

Performance

24%

1.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

8.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 96%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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–² Better than 51% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (19)
12 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each 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–²Better than 51%
?

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
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
zotac-geforce-gtx-960
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960

Based on 12 · 7

Reviewers like its compact size and low power use, but say it runs hot and lacks video memory.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960

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 ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

44%

1.9

Performance

24%

1.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

8.2

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

6.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,435 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,435 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 94.1% 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
2,801 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,801 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.41 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.41 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 93% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% 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
What reviewers say
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
120 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 120 W under peak load, which is lower than 85.6% of graphics cards and equal to 1.5% 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
What reviewers say
Size
211.15x 111.15x 35.2 mm
Length
206 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 206 mm long, which is shorter than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
111.15 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111.15 mm tall, which is shorter than 81.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2.4% 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
907 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 907 g, which is lighter than 62.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 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
  • 76.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (206 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    206 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13.85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.15 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (19)
    12 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (19)
    12 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 2.89x cheaper
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 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.
  • 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
  • 76.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (206 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    206 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13.85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.15 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 50.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,240 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,240 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 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
  • 38.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,177 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,177 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 7.6% worse value for money
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.89 vs 7.4).
    6.89 vs 7.41
  • 50.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,240 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,240 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
  • 38.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,177 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,177 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 80.1% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (75.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    75.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 75.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (39.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    39.68 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
  • 89.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.4 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.41 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
  • 83.5% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,435 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,435 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
  • 76.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,801 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,801 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
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 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 AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • 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 DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, 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 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.
  • 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
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • 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 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.

Video reviews

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

9.0
Tech of Tomorrow
≈ estimated
24/01/2015
Review · key features, temperatures and performance comparison
Verdict
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 is an excellent buy for the price: small, attractive, and a recommended editor's choice.
9.0
HiTechLegion
≈ estimated
22/01/2015
Overview and benchmarks · design, accessories and game tests
Verdict
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 delivers very good performance in many games for its price, according to the test results.
9.0
OC3D RushKit
≈ estimated
09/07/2015
Hands-on review · temperatures, noise and design
Verdict
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 could be a strong fit for small or 1080p builds on a tighter budget.
8.0
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
09/02/2015
Hands-on review · thermal tests, benchmarks and value
Verdict
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 would get our recommendation for small builds if its heat output were improved.
8.0
Bitwit
≈ estimated
03/02/2015
Review · temperatures, noise and fit for small builds
Verdict
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 is a sensible, power-efficient 1080p card, recommended for 1080p gamers, HTPCs and small builds, though it falls short in places.
Shop video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
20/04/2015
Full review · Solid build
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition is well built, quiet and light on power, but it falls just short of rival cards.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
27/02/2015
Full review · Short card
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition suits small cases and 1080p gaming, but its 2GB memory limits demanding games at higher detail.
8.0
techadvisor.com
✓ explicit
01/12/2015
Full review · Efficiency vs rivals
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition is very power-efficient and close to the R9 280X in most games, but its 128-bit memory bus holds it back.
8.0
techteamgb.co.uk
≈ estimated
09/02/2015
Review · Box and accessories
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition is a strong 1080p card when cool, but it is not the best GTX 960 we have tested.
6.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
20/04/2015
Temperature test · Rival comparison
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition has an ample cooler, but its GPU runs much hotter than rivals, so the Asus Strix is the better pick for long-term use.
tweaktown.com
22/01/2015
Not graded yet
8.3
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
17/02/2015
Benchmark test · Overclocked GTX 960
Verdict
The Zotac GeForce GTX 960 AMP! is a short, factory-overclocked card with two axial fans, clocked about 13% above Nvidia's reference speeds.
7.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
22/01/2015
Benchmark review · Mid-range card
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition is very efficient and beats the GTX 760, but top Full HD games need some settings lowered.
7.0
hwmz.de
≈ estimated
20/04/2015
SLI test · Two cards together
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition in a two-card SLI pair gains about 60% on average, but some games gain far less and the pair ranks mid-table.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
22/01/2015
Lab test · Compact overclocked card
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition is compact and silent at rest, but draws more power than rival GTX 960s.
9.0
nexthardware.com
✓ explicit
23/02/2015
Overclock test · Benchmark gains
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition gains 100 MHz on the core but only 50 MHz on memory, so benchmark gains stay under 5%.
6.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
29/04/2015
Lab test · Heat and noise
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition stays silent at idle and quiet under load, but runs about 20°C hotter than the Asus card.
6.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
22/05/2015
Review · Build and cooling
Verdict
The Zotac GTX 960 AMP! Edition is light, short and quiet, but rivals using the same chip beat it.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960

  • Excellent power efficiency with a low 120W TDP
  • Compact 8-inch design fits easily in small form factor (SFF) or HTPC cases
  • FREEZE technology allows for completely silent operation when the GPU is idle
  • Includes a premium metal backplate for added rigidity and aesthetics
  • Strong out-of-the-box performance due to factory overclocking
  • Reliable performance for popular online titles like Valorant and CS2 at 60+ FPS

What customers don't like about ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960

  • Limited 128-bit memory interface can bottle neck performance in demanding titles
  • 2GB VRAM version struggles with modern AAA games at high/ultra settings
  • Runs hotter than some competing models from other brands like Asus or EVGA
  • Smaller cooler design results in slightly more fan noise under heavy load
  • Limited manual overclocking headroom compared to larger triple-fan models

Verdict

The Zotac GeForce GTX 960 is a performance-segment graphics card based on the 28nm Maxwell 2.0 architecture, featuring 1,024 CUDA cores and a 128-bit memory interface with either 2GB or 4GB of GDDR5 VRAM. It operates at a base clock of 1177 MHz and a boost clock of 1240 MHz, supported by a 120W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. Key pros include its compact 8.11-inch length suitable for small form factor cases, a premium metal backplate for durability, and Zotac's FREEZE technology which allows the dual fans to remain silent during idle loads. However, notable cons include its limited 128-bit memory bus which can bottleneck performance at higher resolutions, and its age, as it may struggle with modern AAA titles without significantly lowering settings.

Compare ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 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 ZOTAC GeForce GTX 960 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found