GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[RussianSensation]

^ Even if that were true, every gamer should be able to think for himself. How in the world did NV manage to sell a $450 770 4GB, $550 780 6GB, and now cards like a gimped 960 will be chosen over a 290, a card that is up there with a 970 when equipped with an after-market cooler?

People keep saying it's bad news for AMD, I wish they would compete, then go out and buy an NV card or recommend an NV card that's clearly a worse gaming product. At this pace AMD might as well stop trying.

Look at this forum where it's often stated how 680 and 970/980 undercut a 7970/290/290X but what about the massive price reduction of 290/290X vs. 780/Titan or 6950 unlocked vs. 570/580? Or 4870 $299 vs. 280 @ $649? Whenever NV undercut AMD, it was by small amounts, yet it is those times that are most praised. After-market 290 largely went ignored against the 780 despite costing less, having more VRAM and today showing even better performance. How did that happen exactly?

Clearly PC gamers just don't care for AMD products anymore. I mean a 295X2 with 40-50% more performance sells for not much more than a 980. That would be akin to being able to buy dual 6970s for almost the same price as a 580 and blow it away. Oh wait, that did happen TOO with unlocked 6950s vs. a 580 and NV gamers could care less. See a trend now?? That is the most alarming trend for AMD as a firm -- when they can't even get an NV gamers to buy 2 AMD flagship cards for the nearly the price of 1 NV.

My friend used this argument recently:

"Beats headphones, Apple iPhone, BMW, Bose are some of the best selling products in their space. If most consumers choose these products, they must be the best!!! I don't have time to do research, so I will trust the market's choice."

He didn't care about Sennheiser/AKG/Shure/Samsung/HTC/Sony/Mercedes/
Audi/Porsche/Martin Logan/Definitive Technology/KEF/Klipsch, etc.

I guess I will never understand such brand loyalty or the argument that what's most popular and what's best selling is automatically the best.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

If these benches are legit... I mean a 60 series card doesn't have to be a world beater. But a 60 series card just barely better than the previous generation's 60 series card? When the previous 60 series card was weaker than the cheaper AMD competitor, the 280? It's ridiculous to see how the standards for the 60 series have changed. A 760 could still play new games on high with good framerates at launch. But now with a 960 you're going to have to set Shadow of Mordor to use medium textures on launch day? The 60 series has become the 50 series?

 

[AnandThenMan]

I guess I will never understand such brand loyalty or the argument that what's most popular and what's best selling is automatically the best.

It is extremely common. People feel secure in owning something that to them is "the best" and the best to many means the best selling, the most popular. Being part of #1, the biggest company. And even if logically another product is clearly better, the attachment is so strong that people won't switch.

The interesting thing to me is on an enthusiast forum it used to be that the people were here to learn and exploit that knowledge to buy what was actually the best not what had the best marketing. That seems to be less so now, we have constant arguments about why a product is the best not actually related to the product but other intangibles or irrelevancies, like drivers, AMD is a poorly run company, look at the market share numbers, Nvidia did it first, my friend had a friend that had a bad experience.

So what does any of that have to do with the GTX960? Simple, it doesn't have to be the best card or the best value it just has to be competent and by brand equity it will sell extremely well. If it happens to be a class leading card that is just a bonus.

 

[atticus14]

Will professional reviews talk about how you can buy a 7950 for $135, R9 280 for $150 and R9 285 for $180 on Newegg, and that R9 290 after-market cards can be often found for $240-260? My guess is a NO, with focus on MSRP, performance/watt and DX12 or some other Maxwell feature. :\

Didn't the leaks have slides or info where Nvidia puts it up against it's own 660...lol

We all know how this goes
I doubt you'll see much real comparison except worst case scenarios for AMD. You'll see after market cards OC'd to 1500+ compared to reference AMDs, maybe we'll see a 800Mhz clocked 7950. Any "real" reviews come well after the hype machine has established itself and the marketing money is over.

 

[SlickR12345]

Didn't the leaks have slides or info where Nvidia puts it up against it's own 660...lol

We all know how this goes
I doubt you'll see much real comparison except worst case scenarios for AMD. You'll see after market cards OC'd to 1500+ compared to reference AMDs, maybe we'll see a 800Mhz clocked 7950. Any "real" reviews come well after the hype machine has established itself and the marketing money is over.

Pretty much. $230 aftermarket 1400-1500MHz OC'd GTX 960 cards that are pitted against the reference 280x($230) that beat the 2 years old card by about 10-15% and victory will be declared for the 960 and how EVERYONE needs to get one and how the lower power consumption is the next best thing since the invention of hot water and sliced bread.

 

[Keysplayr]

It is extremely common. People feel secure in owning something that to them is "the best" and the best to many means the best selling, the most popular. Being part of #1, the biggest company. And even if logically another product is clearly better, the attachment is so strong that people won't switch.

The interesting thing to me is on an enthusiast forum it used to be that the people were here to learn and exploit that knowledge to buy what was actually the best not what had the best marketing. That seems to be less so now, we have constant arguments about why a product is the best not actually related to the product but other intangibles or irrelevancies, like drivers, AMD is a poorly run company, look at the market share numbers, Nvidia did it first, my friend had a friend that had a bad experience.

So what does any of that have to do with the GTX960? Simple, it doesn't have to be the best card or the best value it just has to be competent and by brand equity it will sell extremely well. If it happens to be a class leading card that is just a bonus.

Or, you know, 960 could actually be the better card. Sounds like you have it all worked out that it isn't, and the people are already stupid for buying it in the future. So which is better? People who buy what they trust and know (applies either way) or your post here? I vote the former.

 

[skipsneeky2]

So 128bit memory interface to bottleneck it, add only 2GB on top of it to bottleneck it further and to me this seems like a card made for 720p gaming NOT for 1080p gaming.

Seen games on my 26'' 720p t.v already tank on 2gb even at 1366x768,performance is so solid with the settings that force 2gb usage i mind as well have gotten a 7950,oced it and used the settings i got locked out of.If you want the bells and whistles on in 2014/2015+ games you simply don't want 2gb period.

DSR and the 1932x1086/2366x1330 resolutions i use are the only thing that have kept me from selling this 770 off quite a while back and going with a 3gb card.Some new games and i am sure many more will tank 2gb cards at higher resolutions,even if they use less then 2gb.

 

[Enigmoid]

Why is everyone harping about 128 bit? I can see the problem with the Vram but with 1024 shaders and 128 bit this is precisely 1/2 a 980 and will be just as bandwidth bottlenecked (which is to say little to none considering the 960 will run at lower clockspeeds than the 980). Who cares about 128 bit? All that matters is performance.

If you could get 2x 980 performance magically with a 32 bit interface and awesome 4k performance (no other caveats) it doesn't matter that the interface is 32 bit. Kudos for the amazing engineering going into such a design.

Vram, price and performance are going to be the primary concern.

At 10% below the 285 in performance I could see nvidia setting a price between $160 and 180 though they may likely price it at $200.

After Nvidia's massive success with the 970 however, I can see them repeating the strategy. Set the price low, get everyone to upgrade and then they are locked in.

I would rather have Nvidia price themselves a little on the expensive side for AMD's sake.
What people on this forum don't seem to understand (and I'm looking at those that harp on price/perf over a period of years) is the minute that Nvidia prices their products competitively with AMD, AMD loses money. AMD doesn't have the brand image to command higher prices and despite the 'oh nvidia is squeezing the consumer AMD is the good guy for lower prices' mentality that seems to be ruling these forums is that AMD is LOSING money doing this kind of thing. Its absolutely terrible from a business perspective. These are the same people who somehow believe that AMD is some sort of good guy and will, if they manage to engineer a competitive CPU with intel, will force intel to lower prices - never in a million years will AMD do that, they will raise their prices to match intel.

AMD just had a drop in graphics revenue and that section is operating under a minor gain to net loss (hard to see as GPU and CPU are lumped together. AMD expects further drops in revenue. The last thing AMD wants, the last thing anyone wants who doesn't want a monopoly, is a competitively priced 960.

 

[xthetenth]

It is extremely common. People feel secure in owning something that to them is "the best" and the best to many means the best selling, the most popular. Being part of #1, the biggest company. And even if logically another product is clearly better, the attachment is so strong that people won't switch.

The interesting thing to me is on an enthusiast forum it used to be that the people were here to learn and exploit that knowledge to buy what was actually the best not what had the best marketing. That seems to be less so now, we have constant arguments about why a product is the best not actually related to the product but other intangibles or irrelevancies, like drivers, AMD is a poorly run company, look at the market share numbers, Nvidia did it first, my friend had a friend that had a bad experience.

When did companies become sports teams? Because it's really the same mentality.

 

[Attic]

Why is everyone harping about 128 bit? I can see the problem with the Vram but with 1024 shaders and 128 bit this is precisely 1/2 a 980 and will be just as bandwidth bottlenecked (which is to say little to none considering the 960 will run at lower clockspeeds than the 980). Who cares about 128 bit? All that matters is performance.

If you could get 2x 980 performance magically with a 32 bit interface and awesome 4k performance (no other caveats) it doesn't matter that the interface is 32 bit. Kudos for the amazing engineering going into such a design.

Vram, price and performance are going to be the primary concern.

At 10% below the 285 in performance I could see nvidia setting a price between $160 and 180 though they may likely price it at $200.

After Nvidia's massive success with the 970 however, I can see them repeating the strategy. Set the price low, get everyone to upgrade and then they are locked in.

I would rather have Nvidia price themselves a little on the expensive side for AMD's sake.
What people on this forum don't seem to understand (and I'm looking at those that harp on price/perf over a period of years) is the minute that Nvidia prices their products competitively with AMD, AMD loses money. AMD doesn't have the brand image to command higher prices and despite the 'oh nvidia is squeezing the consumer AMD is the good guy for lower prices' mentality that seems to be ruling these forums is that AMD is LOSING money doing this kind of thing. Its absolutely terrible from a business perspective. These are the same people who somehow believe that AMD is some sort of good guy and will, if they manage to engineer a competitive CPU with intel, will force intel to lower prices - never in a million years will AMD do that, they will raise their prices to match intel.

AMD just had a drop in graphics revenue and that section is operating under a minor gain to net loss (hard to see as GPU and CPU are lumped together. AMD expects further drops in revenue. The last thing AMD wants, the last thing anyone wants who doesn't want a monopoly, is a competitively priced 960.

The 128bit bus on the 960 is a concern because it will hamper performance. That's the issue, folks don't diss 128bit mem bus for arbitrary reasons. They do so because it has a direct effect on performance. 2gb for 1080p is also a cheap shot, it's a bare minimum today, what about tommorow? And this from a midrange card?

Just overall disappointment for what nVidia has done with the 960, and it makes sense.

The 960 looks like a letdown for folks who wanted a strong card in the midrange $200 price range.

Reviews were not kind to the 285, we'll see how the 960 gets treated. I'd expect selective benchmarks/settings and commentary to fit the NVidia propaganda and review guidelines. AKA: Polishing a turd.

The 960ti could be exciting. But the 970@$320 is still looking like the black hole in this entire pricing area of where you're money should be going for any gamer who wants a card for 1080p med/high over the next 3 years.

 

[Termie]

...

2. Looking ahead, the Price/performance of a 960 would be worse than R9 290 at $250, because R9 290 would have the extra VRAM and Mantle which will all help in future games.

But I expect the same typical story from reviewers: ignoring R9 200 series on regular sales, downplaying how good R9 290 is by again stating that it runs hot and loud based on some reference card they bought at launch.

I mean look back at your own post history over the years. There is no way the old you would have recommended anyone save $40-60 to lose 20-30% performance and accept half the VRAM because of power usage. After Kepler, it's like NV's marketing REALLY got into the heads of most gamers it seems. It seems the first thing gamers look at are perf/watt not price/performance or performance gained vs. timeframe.

...

Those GM204 cards people gush over but a $240-260 R9 290 with 20%+ performance over a $180-200 960 2GB is not recommended? The double standards when it comes to value and Perf/watt on this forum have become obvious.

Honestly, you just aren't making distinctions between what $180 and $250 means to someone who's actually shopping for a new video card. Did I say I wouldn't recommend an R9 290, as you suggest. No, I did not. In fact I didn't say anything about whether I'd recommend a 960, a 290, or anything else in this thread. I said that a 960 with the leaked performance numbers would sell well at $180. And you responded that it's not as good as a $250 card.

Yeah, that's obvious. But people don't cross-shop $180 and $250 cards, as much as you would like them to. Some people actually want to spend less than $200 on a video card, and that's what's important to them. You can go ahead and say every one of them should save up their hard-earned money and hand it over to AMD for a 290, but honestly, that's not how things work. That's why there are different products for different buyers.

When the final price and performance numbers appear, then we'll all be able to make our own recommendations as to which cards to buy. I personally don't believe the 960's introduction will affect anyone's thinking about the 290 in the slightest.

 

[Enigmoid]

The 128bit bus on the 960 is a concern because it will hamper performance. That's the issue, folks don't diss 128bit mem bus for arbitrary reasons. They do so because it has a direct effect on performance. 2gb for 1080p is also a cheap shot, it's a bare minimum today, what about tommorow? And this from a midrange card?

Just overall disappointment for what nVidia has done with the 960, and it makes sense.

The 960 looks like a letdown for folks who wanted a strong card in the midrange $200 price range.

Reviews were not kind to the 285, we'll see how the 960 gets treated. I'd expect selective benchmarks/settings and commentary to fit the NVidia propaganda and review guidelines. AKA: Polishing a turd.

The 960ti could be exciting. But the 970@$320 is still looking like the black hole in this entire pricing area of where you're money should be going for any gamer who wants a card for 1080p med/high over the next 3 years.

It will have no more effect than the 256 bit bus on the 980 has. As I said before bus width doesn't matter. Bandwidth matters within and can be compared within an architecture but cannot be compared across architectures. 128 is fine for 1024 shaders if the 980 is anything to go by. Its by far the 2 GB vram that is the problem.

 

[Atreidin]

Maybe its because of this? They are known for using shills to spread their bullshit around!

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/01/25/nvidia_accused_using_marketing_shills/

http://consumerist.com/2006/02/06/did-nvidia-hire-online-actors-to-promote-their-products/

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/641869-nvidia-has-paid-shills.html

I am sure there are paid shills, and I am not surprised that instead of being pro-Nvidia they are anti-AMD (and not limited to graphics cards). Almost immediately after the first reviews of any products were posted online, obvious shills infiltrated the review sites with all-too-positive glowing recommendations. People are more likely to believe negative posts than positive ones, but I believe this effect is even more pronounced online. There's the thought that people have in the back of their head, what does this person have to gain by posting anything? Especially on the internet, our first instinct is to assume that positive reviews could be tainted by financial reward, but negative reviews are more likely from someone who feels spurned and is trying to rally support for some kind of justice. It plays on one's desire to feel like a good person by supporting someone who feels wronged. Combine that with the tendency for people to be more likely to believe a lie if it is repeated over and over again, and I find it incredibly likely that at least one company with no morals figured out how to profit from the psychology of it all.

This wouldn't be as much of a problem to me if it didn't contribute to a more negative atmosphere that actually affects people's moods and how they feel in real life, making their day worse after visiting a technical forum only to be immersed in thread after thread being ruined by negativity.

 

[Headfoot]

I am sure there are paid shills, and I am not surprised that instead of being pro-Nvidia they are anti-AMD (and not limited to graphics cards). Almost immediately after the first reviews of any products were posted online, obvious shills infiltrated the review sites with all-too-positive glowing recommendations. People are more likely to believe negative posts than positive ones, but I believe this effect is even more pronounced online. There's the thought that people have in the back of their head, what does this person have to gain by posting anything? Especially on the internet, our first instinct is to assume that positive reviews could be tainted by financial reward, but negative reviews are more likely from someone who feels spurned and is trying to rally support for some kind of justice. It plays on one's desire to feel like a good person by supporting someone who feels wronged. Combine that with the tendency for people to be more likely to believe a lie if it is repeated over and over again, and I find it incredibly likely that at least one company with no morals figured out how to profit from the psychology of it all.

This wouldn't be as much of a problem to me if it didn't contribute to a more negative atmosphere that actually affects people's moods and how they feel in real life, making their day worse after visiting a technical forum only to be immersed in thread after thread being ruined by negativity.

I very, very much doubt any paid shilling is anti-AMD -- at least out of nVidia's dollars. Legally it is all clear to go out there and talk about how great your product is, anything short of false advertising and even that is weakened if you're filtering through PR agencies and shills and their contracts.

But paying people to disparage competitor's products with a good likelihood of falsity directly implicates trade libel, other defamation and other business torts. A much more risky proposition legally. No GC worth anything would approve that when you can just pimp your own product nearly risk free. Most any GC would approve a "viral marketing campaign" which is unethical in the eyes of some but not illegal provided the decision makers want it. nVidia is too big and sophisticated to do something dumb like a thinly veiled trade libel squad. It's probably possible to structure it in a way where you pass the buck on the liability to the posters or the PR firm but why risk it at all? What's the ROI?

The Anti-Anybody nutjobs are likely people that have nothing better to do, or warped team cheerleading mentalities, or something. I don't doubt there are a lot of Pro-Somebody paid shills though. And I'm sure the Pro-Somebody shills make occasional comments against competing companies. But I doubt there is a dedicated anti-AMD squad out there paid for by anyone

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Damn I wish AMD would pay me for every nasty thing I have said about the garbage GTX 960.

 

[Attic]

It will have no more effect than the 256 bit bus on the 980 has. As I said before bus width doesn't matter. Bandwidth matters within and can be compared within an architecture but cannot be compared across architectures. 128 is fine for 1024 shaders if the 980 is anything to go by. Its by far the 2 GB vram that is the problem.

Yes, I understand your point and it's a good one. 128bit, given the rest of the 960 is not going to be the weakest link.

My perspective is simply that given nVidia went 128bit, this is indicative of the card as a whole. nVidia cut down enough of the card that 128bit fits, i'm just saying they cut down the rest of the card, so much so, to the point that 128bit fits. Indicitive of how slow the card will be.

The 980 has 2048 shader cores and 128 texture units, the 970 1664 shader cores and 104 texture units, the 960 is going so far down on shader cores (1024) that 128bit memory is fine given the context of the 960 as a card, the context being a weak card that is threatening to be priced at midrange prices.

I and a lot of others were looking forward to something better than 2gb VRAM, 128bit mem, 1024 shader cores, and 64 texture units. Something fitting like 3gb VRAM, 192bit memory, 1280 shader cores and 80 texture units or more, particularly given the likely hood nvidia will price this at $200-220.

Looks like nVidia it's cheesing out on midrange and just cutting the 980 right in half, i'd have expected/wanted something a bit stronger and more exciting for $200 bucks in the important midrange area.

 

[Ranulf]

...
I and a lot of others were looking forward to something better than 2gb VRAM, 128bit mem, 1024 shader cores, and 64 texture units. Something fitting like 3gb VRAM, 192bit memory, 1280 shader cores and 80 texture units or more, particularly given the likely hood nvidia will price this at $200-220.

Looks like nVidia it's cheesing out on midrange and just cutting the 980 right in half, i'd have expected/wanted something a bit stronger and more exciting for $200 bucks in the important midrange area.

Ditto. For me it is the ram.

 

[Headfoot]

Damn I wish AMD would pay me for every nasty thing I have said about the garbage GTX 960.

Lol!!

I think a lot of forum members would be rich!

 

[xthetenth]

Would that make the 960 leaks a ploy to put AMD out of business by driving their marketing budget through the roof?

 

[el etro]

I understood the point of the GTX 960:
Maxwell 2(GM2xx) delivers better perf/mm² and perf/w than Kepler, so they are designing this card to both price at a competitive price and being cheap to manufacture. Is a win for Nvidia.

 

[crisium]

Will professional reviews talk about how you can buy a 7950 for $135, R9 280 for $150 and R9 285 for $180 on Newegg, and that R9 290 after-market cards can be often found for $240-260? My guess is a NO, with focus on MSRP, performance/watt and DX12 or some other Maxwell feature. :\

I want a cost benefit analysis for the time it takes to recoup the electricity savings from reviewers who claim the lower power usage is a huge advantage of a 960 over a 7950/R9 280/285/280X

I will also be looking for consistency in the review.

If a reviewer recommends that a gamer spends $40-50 more for a 960 over the 7950B/R9 280, I want to see if they also recommend spending $40-60 extra for the R9 290 over the 960.

As it is, the 960 to me sits in no man's land between a budget $135-150 7950/R9 280 and very good performing 290/290X, and it's crippled in VRAM between both of those AMD options! I want a reviewer to talk about how risky it is to buy a $200 2GB gaming card in 2015.

I fear you will not find your reviewer. HardOCP is your only hope, and even then Kyle won't likely enforce all your (reasonable and rational) criteria. Maybe Ryan still reads the forums and will rightly use common sense and evaluate this card against ALL viable competition and with all relevant metrics. Maybe (please, this is a chance for Anandtech to shine).

I understood the point of the GTX 960:
Maxwell 2(GM2xx) delivers better perf/mm² and perf/w than Kepler, so they are designing this card to both price at a competitive price and being cheap to manufacture. Is a win for Nvidia.

It's a win if reviewers compare it to the 270x, 285, 760, and other 2GB cards at 1080. If we see it properly reviewed against 280, 280x, and 290 and some more demanding resolutions, I think the 2GB could bite Nvidia in the butt. Cheap to manufacture, but the 2GB is a death sentence.

The only thing is, Nvidia tends to know just how low they can push VRAM in current reviewed games without it looking bad. 320 8800GTS, 1.25 GTX 570, 2GB 770, they all looked just fine in launch reviews. It was games 1-2 years down the road that saw them punished. Still, I feel 2GB is hurting now more than those cards were hurt by their VRAM at launch, relatively. But we shall see if reviewers properly compare the card to more than other 2GB cards.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Is this a joke? $270?

http://www.shopblt.com/item/gigabyte-gv-n960wf2oc-2gd-gtx-960-gddr5-2gb/gigmbd_gvn960wf2oc2gd.html

 

[voodoo7817]

With the 960 looking like it's not an option for 1440p, I finally bit on a Sapphire Tri-X 290 for just under $240 shipped (at Newegg AMIR and Visa Checkout). I agree with those on this thread who think that the 290s are the price/performance king right now, especially at 1440p.

No more iGPU for me (560ti in sig died)!

 

[Blitzvogel]

The only thing is, Nvidia tends to know just how low they can push VRAM in current reviewed games without it looking bad. 320 8800GTS, 1.25 GTX 570, 2GB 770, they all looked just fine in launch reviews. It was games 1-2 years down the road that saw them punished. Still, I feel 2GB is hurting now more than those cards were hurt by their VRAM at launch, relatively. But we shall see if reviewers properly compare the card to more than other 2GB cards.

We just have a case of Nvidia being Nvidia, putting a premium on their new product. You'll have dedicated Nvidia buyers biting for the product, as well as less informed people who think the box art looks cool or at least recognize the Nvidia name. If it doesn't sell at $200, then Nvidia will just drop the price and still get a good amount of profit.

If you can stand dealing medium-high texture settings @ 1080p, I think you'll be good with 2 GB VRAM for the short term. MGS5 gets nowhere close to 2 GB of VRAM usage. Shadows of Mordor even on the very high texture setting (which recommends 3 GB and still sits below the highest setting) still didn't past the 2 GB limit on my R9 270. Honestly it doesn't look too much better than the medium texture setting, but it's a game by game case basis, and expecting more VRAM is fair, especially at the price point.

 

[SlickR12345]

At this point I just hope someone destroys Nvidia's ass and gets them bankrupt, whether its AMD or Intel buys AMD and drills their ass I don't care.

I used to like Nvidia, favored them a bit over ATI, they released the 6600 and 6600GT, those were something like $120, $150 and $170 for the le, normal and GE versions. One of the best mid range gpu's at that time and still one of the best releases.

with the 8800GT and GTS you had amazing products at mid range prices.

460 765mb and 1GB launches were amazing, $130 and $150 and we had custom overclocks that sold at $160 with huge gains.

Ever since then though they've been sucking people dry, releasing crappy products with barely any gains at same prices, etc...

At this point they are a scourge on gaming and hardware development. They are holding everything back.