yeah , It depends on the game, you are right mate. I wasn't even supposed to tell that a 960 2 gb would be not able to hold high end games with 60+ fps, i just specified, to be as clear as possible, which is my general preference in games. I prefer to lower graphics details if for enhance the FPS stability, just that. About the depending on game thing, you are FULL right. For example with some games like battlefield or gta or other generic driving games, the FPS ratio would be performance during ur gaming experience, if you have 50 to 60 fps during the first 10 minutes of playing, you will hardly have ever less to 45-40 fps ever. There are also RTS games, games like starcraft 2 or so. In those games u might have with this card, all ultra details shader included ultra, about 200+ fps in the first 10 seconds (i also have 140-150 fps + initially with my 750 ti). Those games run slower depending on the spell numbers , the light numbers , the quality of unit fighting and on the camera scroll and the various cloackings, fps can go lower to 10-15 fps in very hard battles, after the 140-150 you had in the first seconds. Just to say, it's right, every game is different, i believe about testing games in the hardest situations with a good fraps benchmark, draw the bottom fps you scored, and decide if the details you had on the game are proper or not. Game depend also on the minimum/average FPS required to define ur gaming session satisfying. In the starcraft 2 example, be never lower to 50 fps, have avg of 65-80(under the hardest possible situations) and your fps may be ok to play at the best you can. I also think games like carmageddon, need for speed , or gta, pay in terms of gaming experience if ALWAYS over 30 fps not more, depend on the games, camera-scroll involving games, especially if they call multitask and mini-map move do require more fps in my opinion.