GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[Termie]

You can still buy 280/280X in the market. Therefore, for the time being they count, and not just the 285. Also, for the life of me I can't figure out how at $200 the 960 is good value Termie when for $40 there is the excellent HIS ICEQ 290. All the time R9 290 goes down to $240-260. People paid $150 (!) more for just double the VRAM on a 770/780, but spending $40-60 for a card 1 class above that happens to have double the VRAM and supports Mantle isn't worth it?

Also, not sure how an R9 270X is a competitor as those generally sell for $130-170, well below the $200 mark. I see you point that spend a bit more and get a 960, but then I guess I compate 960 against the value leader after-market 290 in the same way and also envision what a $199 300 series card will be like and I don't think the 960 looks so hot. The reviews should be out shortly, and as I expect after-market 960 will be going against 10% slower throttled reference 290 in benches, and will still lose.

It somewhat amazes me how R9 290 had great sales for $200-250 for 3 months since 970/980 but 3 months later a $200 960 is exciting? I guess for those who don't follow the GPU market closely.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume the last statement wasn't directed at me.

The 290s worth buying are not $240, and never have been. You can cherry-pick an AR sale at Newegg, but that's not really how people make video card purchasing decisions.

As a 290 owner, I'm at least as familiar as you are with the 290, what it sells for, and its pros and cons. The 960 and 290 are not in the least bit direct competitors. The 960 is a 120W card requiring only one PCIe power connector, that in all likelihood will come in at 9.5" or less even in aftermarket form. The 290 is a 250W card, the smallest version of which, the MSI Gaming, is 10.9" long. Most are over 11.5".

So, let's keep things straight here. All the 960 has to do to sell is to beat the 285, which is averaging about $220AR. That's an easy target, and would be enough to pull off a 970-esque feat of undercutting its slower competitor.

The only issue here is the benchmark being used, the 285, which is not that competitive. If Nvidia wanted the 960 to become a huge success, it would have to match (not beat) 270X pricing. Which by the way, isn't $130, and hasn't been since Black Friday. Again, the cherry-picking isn't helping people make decisions. $170AR is the target here.

AMD has been a bit lazy in the midrange market. If I were Nvidia, I'd go for the jugular. But I don't believe it will. Just not enough movement in that price range - $300 is the new sweet spot and focus of competition.

 

[RussianSensation]

I see this comment about cherry-picked 290 sales with AR but excellent PCS+, Diamond (rebadged HiS) and HIS 290 have been hitting those prices for 3 months! I guess when you start saying things like 120W power usage and videocard length, you are no longer talking about value of the card itself when it comes to performance and price/performance but pointing out that supposedly tons of gamers buying a 960 will have weak PSUs and outdated small cases. I guess if you want to ignore AR and constant sales on R9 200 series, then at MSRP, the 960 is a winner.

I don't look at things that way since there are almost always deals on AMD cards in the US and not just around Black Friday.

This HiS ICEQ 290 has fallen to $240/250 over a period of 1 month at least. I guess on our forum and for most gamers now, price/performance, double the VRAM, Mantle performance, and absolute performance are all secondary to card length and perf/watt.

Interesting how the times have changed when $499 280 sold like hot cakes with only 20% more performance over a $299 4870 but spending $40-60 more for a card 15%+ faster now with double the VRAM is too expensive.

 

[Termie]

I see this comment about cherry-picked 290 sales with AR but excellent PCS+, Diamond (rebadged HiS) and HIS 290 have been hitting those prices for 3 months! I guess when you start saying things like 120W power usage and videocard length, you are no longer talking about value of the card itself when it comes to performance and price/performance but pointing out that supposedly tons of gamers buying a 960 will have weak PSUs and outdated small cases. I guess if you want to ignore AR and constant sales on R9 200 series, then at MSRP, the 960 is a winner.

I don't look at things that way since there are almost always deals on AMD cards in the US and not just around Black Friday.

This HiS ICEQ 290 has fallen to $240/250 over a period of 1 month at least. I guess on our forum and for most gamers now, price/performance, double the VRAM, Mantle performance, and absolute performance are all secondary to card length and perf/watt.

Interesting how the times have changed when $499 280 sold like hot cakes with only 20% more performance over a $299 4870 but spending $40-60 more for a card 15%+ faster now with double the VRAM is too expensive.

Actually, if we're being literal here, based on the numbers you've just presented, the 960 at $200 would deliver better price/performance than the 290 at $250. So, again, $200 is the target for big, if not blockbuster, sales.

There is no Nvidia-backed conspiracy to brainwash every AT forum reader along with the general public into buying only Nvidia. It's simple competition...and arithmetic.

 

[shady28]

I'll go out on a limb here and assume the last statement wasn't directed at me.

The 290s worth buying are not $240, and never have been. You can cherry-pick an AR sale at Newegg, but that's not really how people make video card purchasing decisions.

As a 290 owner, I'm at least as familiar as you are with the 290, what it sells for, and its pros and cons. The 960 and 290 are not in the least bit direct competitors. The 960 is a 120W card requiring only one PCIe power connector, that in all likelihood will come in at 9.5" or less even in aftermarket form. The 290 is a 250W card, the smallest version of which, the MSI Gaming, is 10.9" long. Most are over 11.5".

So, let's keep things straight here. All the 960 has to do to sell is to beat the 285, which is averaging about $220AR. That's an easy target, and would be enough to pull off a 970-esque feat of undercutting its slower competitor.

The only issue here is the benchmark being used, the 285, which is not that competitive. If Nvidia wanted the 960 to become a huge success, it would have to match (not beat) 270X pricing. Which by the way, isn't $130, and hasn't been since Black Friday. Again, the cherry-picking isn't helping people make decisions. $170AR is the target here.

AMD has been a bit lazy in the midrange market. If I were Nvidia, I'd go for the jugular. But I don't believe it will. Just not enough movement in that price range - $300 is the new sweet spot and focus of competition.

^^^ This


A common faulting here with certain 'enthusiasts' is not taking the entire picture into account. Size, power draw / heat, and noise level are typically ignored. Those things create all kinds of hidden costs and annoyances which many of us are not willing to deal with. The 960 with 120W draw and needing only a single PCI-e power connector means that it is a no-brainer for many people with OEM systems, smaller cases, and lower rated PSUs.

That said I think the 960, if the specs are true, is kind of boring. Particularly when you consider the performance delta between the 970 and the 770; 970 even beats the 780 most of the time.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1037


The 970 and the R9 290 are about the same in performance, but then look at the power consumption.


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1068


And it shows -

R9 290 - 2 fans, heat risers that go above the top of the card, and 10.5" long. This card is going to be a massive air blocker / heat generator in your case, and many cases will not support this size card. If you have a big case and good air circ, great. I would never ever rec this card to anyone using a major OEM system (like HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc). :

GTX 970 - 7.2" long. You can fit this in any case as long as the PSU is moderately capable.

 

[xthetenth]

My GTX 970 has literally the same dimensions as one of the larger 290s out there and has three fans. That particular 970 is one of if not the smallest ones available, and as far as people I know, isn't a common choice.

Also, the performance delta is only half of the forecast. It looks like the 960's weaknesses are going to be hit harder as time goes on, so that delta should only increase.

 

[Attic]

The 960 isn't going to compete with the 290, anyone who wants 290 level of performance is going stick with the 290 vs 970 comparisons.

The 960 is too crippled to be in same conversation as 290. I expect cherry picked benchmark settings in reviews to disguise the performance delta here. Review sites have tended to simply push new cards by making things rosier than a hard accurate look would typically give, especially for nVidia hardware. Credit to nVidia marketing department here.

Very disappointed in the 960 unless it's a $160 card. But this card looks like the same bush league tactics as AMD's 285.

A 960Ti with 3gb, 192bit mem is a certainty. That at ~$200+ will be going after 290 sales.

 

[Ranulf]

Very disappointed in the 960 unless it's a $160 card. But this card looks like the same bush league tactics as AMD's 285.

A 960Ti with 3gb, 192bit mem is a certainty. That at ~$200+ will be going after 290 sales.

I agree. The 285 was a joke until they dropped the price a couple of months after release and now its just sort of competitive.

 

[RussianSensation]

Actually, if we're being literal here, based on the numbers you've just presented, the 960 at $200 would deliver better price/performance than the 290 at $250. So, again, $200 is the target for big, if not blockbuster, sales.

There is no Nvidia-backed conspiracy to brainwash every AT forum reader along with the general public into buying only Nvidia. It's simple competition...and arithmetic.

I don't know exact performance of a 960 until reviews come out. If it's slightly faster than a 770/7970Ghz, let's say it falls at 75% at 1080p:
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/27.html

An after-market 290 = 290X reference at 94%. That's 25% faster with double the VRAM and Mantle for $40-60 more. But I think there is a good chance 960 won't reach 75% on that chart because it's only half of a 980.

It still intrigues me where a 1280 CUDA core / 192-bit 3GB 970M style 960Ti is at. I think that card at $249 would have seriously shaken up the market. Even if 960 performs at 75-76% at 1080p at TPU on that chart, 2GB of VRAM is still a huge sore spot that basically made 285 a card with no future. I honestly don't see how next gen 2015-2017 games will stay at just 2GB even at 1080p. Soon we will see 2nd and 3rd wave or cross-platform titles. Dead Light should give us a good indication of the 2nd wave of PS4 games and their VRAM usage.

I agree. The 285 was a joke until they dropped the price a couple of months after release and now its just sort of competitive.

I don't think a 285 is competitive. It needs to be $149. 2GB of VRAM and worse than a 280X.

 

[utahraptor]

Have these been seen?

 

[SPBHM]

Have these been seen?

why is it so long? dual GPU?
I thought 960 was a 130W 128bit card,

 

[jpiniero]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some very highly clocked 960s that have TDPs in the 150ish range.

I have to say I am a little disappointed. It really should be 1280 core/3 GB/192-bit if it's $200.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Have these been seen?

[/IMG]

That is just a bit to much i think for a 960,i wonder if these will carry the $30 premium over msrp like the 970 version?Coming damn close to 290 if that is the case if the card starts at $200.

Cooler is overkill on the 960.

 

[tential]

That is just a bit to much i think for a 960,i wonder if these will carry the $30 premium over msrp like the 970 version?Coming damn close to 290 if that is the case if the card starts at $200.

Cooler is overkill on the 960.

I imagine it's for those who want to push the card to its limits.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I imagine it's for those who want to push the card to its limits.

I could see it being actually pretty awesome to tinker with,stock clocks i guess would run incredibly cool and maybe quite silent too.I think the G1 cooler is 300w compatible?

 

[utahraptor]

why is it so long? dual GPU?
I thought 960 was a 130W 128bit card,

If someone is going to pay ~$235 for a card it had better at least look heavy. So in other words... "Marketing"

 

[skipsneeky2]

If someone is going to pay ~$235 for a card it had better at least look heavy. So in other words... "Marketing"

That cooler wouldn't do much for overclocking if the card is locked to a single 6 pin.Single 6 pin cards are good for 145w i believe.

I am guessing this one is gonna have dual 6 pin.Not sure what dual 6 pins are rated for but it surely is gonna open up some possibilities for overclocking.:biggrin:

 

[shady28]

I'm certain that triple-fan 960 is just the 'style' they chose to use. More fans and bigger heatsinks don't mean anything, at all.


Case in point -


This is 9.85" 750 Ti.

Core clock 1085Mhz
Memory Clock effective 5400 Mhz

This is a 7.2" 750 Ti

Core clock 1202Mhz
Memory clock effective 6008 Mhz

The 960 has the power draw equivalent to an R7 260X.

This is an R7 260X 7.2" long :

 

[SPBHM]

I would expect all 960s to look more like this

as I said that gigabyte 960 is so silly it looks like a 460 2win (dual GPU),

(which was 256bit GDDR5 X2)

but I guess longer PCB is faster!!

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm certain that triple-fan 960 is just the 'style' they chose to use. More fans and bigger heatsinks don't mean anything, at all.

Except it means better cooling. So it does mean something after all.

 

[shady28]

Except it means better cooling. So it does mean something after all.

This is the assumption the marketing folks would like you to believe.

 

[cmdrdredd]

This is the assumption the marketing folks would like you to believe.

How do you figure a stock blower cooler works better than heatpipes and aftermarket fans? It doesn't, and never has.

That's the whole reason MSI, Asus, Gigabyte, and even EVGA these days have custom cooling solutions. They cool the card better. If you're looking only at the out of the box clock speeds you don't have a clue. Overclocking performance is very much determined by the cooling solution on the card. If it made no difference as you suggest nobody would be buying the Asus Strix, EVGA ACX, and MSI Twin Frozer solutions and everyone would run a reference card, dealing with overly loud single fans that run at ridiculously high rpm.

 

[SlickR12345]

Anything more than $150 for this card would be insane. You can get a 270x for about $160 quite often and at $200 we are talking about AMD 280x.

But knowing Nvidia it won't surprise me one bit if this was $200 or even more, something like $220 and then a bit later on a 4GB card for $250.

Boy I just want AMD to hurry up and get some luck for once and get out the 20nm cards soon that savage Nvidia crap that they are offering right now. I can't comprehend why the 750TI is still $150. What a garbage card, so freaking slow, they threat 30W less watts as the next best thing since sliced bread.

As if few cents lower electric bills per month make any difference. You would literally need to use the 750ti 24/7 365 daya a year to save couple dozen of dollars/euros on electricity a year. Give me a break about this "energy efficiency" crap.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Anything more than $150 for this card would be insane. You can get a 270x for about $160 quite often and at $200 we are talking about AMD 280x.

It depends on where the performance falls. That has yet to be determined. It may end up being a monster overclocker so that ~$200 may start trading blows with cards costing $100 more at certain resolutions.

 

[SlickR12345]

It depends on where the performance falls. That has yet to be determined. It may end up being a monster overclocker so that ~$200 may start trading blows with cards costing $100 more at certain resolutions.

Who cares about an OC? Then you have to take into consideration that its running hotter, louder and wasting more electricity and wearing it out faster and unless the OC gives you 20% performance increase or more, which would translate to only several more frames, I mean we would be talking about 3-4 more frames at 1080p resolutions in newer games, so even then its kind of a moot point.

If its $200 it better be faster than the 280x. I mean that is an old card and its derived from an even older card, so we are talking about a 3, almost 4 years old technology, so the new 960 better be faster at the same price range.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Who cares about an OC? Then you have to take into consideration that its running hotter, louder and wasting more electricity and wearing it out faster and unless the OC gives you 20% performance increase or more, which would translate to only several more frames, I mean we would be talking about 3-4 more frames at 1080p resolutions in newer games, so even then its kind of a moot point.

If its $200 it better be faster than the 280x. I mean that is an old card and its derived from an even older card, so we are talking about a 3, almost 4 years old technology, so the new 960 better be faster at the same price range.

Who cares? Tons of people do. Just look at some of the signatures on this very forum. Many people overclock their components. Then you say it's wasting electricity. Just before you were complaining about GPUs being created for power savings. Which is it now? You're all over the place. Do you want power savings or do you want performance? You can't really have both. If you overclock you gain performance but DUH...you use more power.