GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[96Firebird]

460 - $199 MSRP
560 Ti - $249 MSRP
660 - $229 MSRP
760 - $249 MSRP

 

[cmdrdredd]

No it isn't. $100-$150 is. R7 260x, GTX 750Ti, R9 270 are all gaming cards. So is R9 280.

Those aren't even worth looking at to me.

 

[Silverforce11]

460 - $199 MSRP
560 Ti - $249 MSRP
660 - $229 MSRP
760 - $249 MSRP

What's the performance relative to the top tier?

I didn't recall the 480 being 60-80% faster than the 460.
Likewise, the 770 wasn't anywhere that much faster than the 760.

NV basically took 950ti performance and charged 960 prices due to an efficiency & "new hardware" tax.

 

[96Firebird]

460 --> 480 was about 60%
560 Ti --> 580 was 34%
660 --> 680 was about 48%
760 --> 780 Ti was about 59%
(760 --> 780 was about 42%)
960 --> 980 is about 79%

These are all taken from TPU performance summaries at 1080p/1200p.

 

[RussianSensation]

460 - $199 MSRP
560 Ti - $249 MSRP
660 - $229 MSRP
760 - $249 MSRP

Tells me nothing whatsover because you provided no point of reference to other cards in NV's line-up in terms of relative performance, not did you discuss the time frame that it took for 960 to come out vs. 660/660Ti/760. I'll address these points below.

GTX560Ti = $250 = 100%
GTX570 = $350 = 116% ($100 more for 16% more performance, or $6.25 for each 1% of additional performance )
GTX580 = $500 = 134% ($250 more for 34% more performance, or $7.35 for each 1% of additional performance)

vs. now

GTX960 = $199
GTX970 = $329 ($130 more for 50% more performance, or $2.60 for every 1% of additional performance)
GTX980 = $549 ($350 more for 70% more performance, or $5 for every 1% of additional performance)

Notice how amazing GTX970/980 look compared to a GTX960, a stark contrast to GTX560Ti vs. 570/580. You know why that is? Because the GTX960 is overpriced AND too slow. The value 970 offers over the 960 is incredible.

460 --> 480 was about 60%
560 Ti --> 580 was 34%
660 --> 680 was about 48%
760 --> 780 Ti was about 59%
(760 --> 780 was about 42%)
960 --> 980 is about 79%

These are all taken from TPU performance summaries at 1080p/1200p.

Exactly, so a 960 is more than 2X worse than a 560Ti was relative to the top NV card. In fact, worse performance than any NV mid-range card vs. the top NV card in your chart. But you missed the Grand Finale - You could overclock cards like the GTX560Ti to come close or even beat an HD6970/570, cards that cost $349-369.

It takes $400 960 SLI to try match an $250 R9 290. FAIL.

GTX460 overclocked well and had tessellation performance, which meant that in some games it was trading blows with an HD5870

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/asus-engtx460-directcu-top_6.html#sect1

vs. GTX960 that's 2 fps faster than a stock GTX760 in Crysis 3, when overclocked to 1.4Ghz. FAIL.

Can't even beat a stock 285/280X in Bioshock Infinite when max overclocked.

It's an insult to a GTX460 or GTX560Ti to compare a 960 to them.

GTX660 came out Sept 2012
GTX760 came out June 2013

TPU - "we only see a disappointing 9% improvement over the previous-generation GTX 760, as compared to the GTX 660 (from which a lot of users might upgrade) with a 27% improvement."

In more than 2 years, NV improved on a GTX660 by just 27%. FAIL.

Reminds me of when I had my GTX 770s. They held their price extremely well over time (until the GTX 970 came out), despite AMD's massive price cuts on their 7970 GHz cards..

What? GTX770 4GB was $450 x 2 = $900

Soon after they were selling for $250-275 x2 = $500-550 on the used market or a loss of value of $350-400 in about a year. You call that good resale value? 7970Ghz made $ and paid for itself so $1000 HD7970Ghz cost $0.

 

[Carfax83]

What? GTX770 4GB was $450 x 2 = $900

Soon after they were selling for $250-275 x2 = $500-550 on the used market or a loss of value of $350-400 in about a year. You call that good resale value? 7970Ghz made $ and paid for itself so $1000 HD7970Ghz cost $0.

They only started losing their value when the GTX 970 came out. I sold mine on eBay for 515 USD..

But the point is that even after AMD heavily discounted the 7970 GHz cards, the GTX 770 4GB were still selling for well over 400 dollars a piece brand new for MONTHS! It took the 970 to really lower their value..

Perception has a great deal to do with value, and NVidia cards are perceived by most PC gamers as being of greater value, which is why NVidia can demand higher prices for them.

 

[SimianR]

You know, I'm not a huge fan of this card but it's tricky to compare pricing and performance from generation to generation because it's never static and products are always priced based on the current generation and market situation. It's not a huge leap from the 760 that's for sure, so it's a bit disappointing - but I wasn't overly thrilled with my 760 either so that's why I moved on to an R9 290. That said, this leaves room for a 960 Ti, and I bet a 960 Ti at 3-4GB VRAM and a bit more performance would probably sell like hotcakes at $250.

 

[Silverforce11]

460 --> 480 was about 60%
560 Ti --> 580 was 34%
660 --> 680 was about 48%
760 --> 780 Ti was about 59%
(760 --> 780 was about 42%)
960 --> 980 is about 79%

These are all taken from TPU performance summaries at 1080p/1200p.

I don't recall such a wide gap from 460 -> 480, in fact the 460 was a great card, it OC well and was cheap, also lots of custom variants went for similar price to the reference.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_460_Sonic_Platinum/31.html

All these prior results just shows how poor the 960 is in relation.

 

[96Firebird]

I don't recall such a wide gap from 460 -> 480, in fact the 460 was a great card, it OC well and was cheap, also lots of custom variants went for similar price to the reference.

I used the 768MB version, because that is the price I used. The 1GB looks to be about 51%.

I have my 460 1GB as my backup card, they really were great cards.

 

[Face2Face]

I can't say the raw performance of the GTX 960 is all that inspiring; however, the power draw of this card is exceptional. Looking at PCPer's "new" power testing setup, they're showing the card alone drawing 95 watts at it's peak running the MLL bench.

Keeping that in mind, it's performance isn't bad in this title; seeing that it matches the Radeon 285 in performance, but uses 100w less doing it.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...-2GB-Review-GM206-199/New-Level-Power-Testing

 

[Enigmoid]

GTX960 that's 2 fps faster than a stock GTX760 in Crysis 3, when overclocked to 1.4Ghz. FAIL.

Can't even beat a stock 285/280X in Bioshock Infinite when max overclocked.

I think you need to recheck your statements here.

Crysis 3 its faster than a 280X when the 960 is overclocked. Its a little faster than the 760 but the 760 and 770 are quite close together.

Bioshock when its overclocked it is faster than the 285/280X.

Hell, in both of those graphs stock 960 is faster than the 280 and just a little under par with the 280x.

 

[96Firebird]

LOL, is that some serious cherry picking going on or what? Reverse the games, what do you get?

GTX 960 OC'd that is 8% faster than the 760 in Bioshock Infinite.

GTX 960 OC'd that beats the 280X, 280, 285 in Crysis 3.

Basically, the complete opposite of what he was trying to "prove"...

 

[Silverforce11]

RS's statement is perfectly correct. You both need to re-read and comprehend before you starting your false crusade.

"GTX960 that's 2 fps faster than a stock GTX760 in Crysis 3, when overclocked to 1.4Ghz. FAIL." True or False? True.

"Can't even beat a stock 285/280X in Bioshock Infinite when max overclocked." True or False? True. It ties the R280X when its heavily OC in Bioshock Infinite.

Sure its faster than AMD's equivalent in Crysis 3 but that's Crysis 3.

 

[96Firebird]

Is what I said correct?

That is the point I am trying to make. You can cherry pick the benchmark to agree with what you say, but it doesn't mean much when you can reverse the games and the opposite is true...

 

[RussianSensation]

Is what I said correct?

That is the point I am trying to make. You can cherry pick the benchmark to agree with what you say, but it doesn't mean much when you can reverse the games and the opposite is true...

Reverse the games? What? I don't even....

Again, you guys keep using R9 280X/285 as some magical cop out.

Look on Newegg, 5 seconds, I get $240 R9 290.

Since we know that after-market R9 290 = reference 290X, we get:

Sleeping Dogs
R9 290X = 72 fps
960 = 45 fps

BF4
R9 290X = 63 fps
960 = 38 fps

Thief
R9 290X = 63 fps
960 = 39 fps

WD
R9 290X = 77 fps
960 = 56 fps

Crysis 3
290X = 52 fps
960 = 35 fps

BS: Infinite
290X = 88 fps
960 = 60 fps

Metro Redux
290X = 62 fps
960 = 47 fps

TR
290X = 73 fps
960 = 52 fps

290X = 550 fps (+48% faster for $40 more).
960 = 372 fps

What are you going to tell me now, performance and IQ don't matter but power usage is a god send? You might as well quit PC gaming and go buy a console. When GM200 beats 980 by 40-50% for hundreds more, are you going to tell us that it's not worth $200-300 extra over the 980 too because obviously you think an R9 290 isn't worth $40-50 over the 960 with 48% more performance and double the VRAM.

Just admit it you'll never buy any AMD card, no matter the performance, no matter the price.

 

[legcramp]

OUch

 

[96Firebird]

Reverse the games? What? I don't even....

Again, you guys keep using R9 280X/285 as some magical cop out.

The point, it's floating right over your head!

Keep thinking, it'll come to you.

It took me so long to delete all the extra nothingness I thought my phone was going to die. But it made it, success!

 

[SPBHM]

average prices are not exactly like that (check some random Amazon or something), average price for a 290 can be closer to $300, average price for the 960 is close to $200

and checking the TPU numbers, playing Metro last light the 960 is using 120W, the 290 263W (for 55 vs 77FPS),

the 290 for $240 is certainly GREAT performance for the money, but it's not always that obvious of a choice... the 960 can save you some money and perform well on current games...

 

[amenx]

2 areas where Nvidia failed with this card. Naming: should have been called a 950ti. Calling it a 960 tarnishes their great record with other x60 cards released in the past. Pricing: $160 would have been a very good value new gen lower mid-range card.

A 960 should have been on par with 770 but with 3gb mem. Follow that up with 960ti to be around 6-7% slower than 970 at lower resolutions. Pricing $199 and $249 respectively.

 

[Erenhardt]

quoted for lolz

980 is so far to the right it didn't even fit in the graph.

 

[Silverforce11]

Is what I said correct?

That is the point I am trying to make. You can cherry pick the benchmark to agree with what you say, but it doesn't mean much when you can reverse the games and the opposite is true...

If you reverse it, it still looks bad. Because it had to be massively OC just to look "meh".

Even your own comparisons with x60 cards in the past show this 960 ought to be a 950ti priced lower than it is. There's not much to argue when the numbers are so obvious.

 

[Alaa]

wtf nv

 

[Ranulf]

From PCPer's review comments, apparently during their live show nvidia's Tom Petersen said no 4gb ram for the 960.

"January 22, 2015 | 02:06 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

From Tom - the 960 does not support 4GB."

( http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-960-2GB-Review-GM206-199 )

So, 960ti if it shows up, given how long they waited for the 960... its a cut down 970 hopefully with 4gb ram.

 

[Qwertilot]

Surely the 750ti just moved the TDP targets for the stack?

950ti would be 'meant' to be ~60w nowadays, so this at 100-120w (or whatever it is) is definitely the next logical step up. Quite possibly not a 950ti until they die shrink/update Maxwell.

 

[Leyawiin]

2 areas where Nvidia failed with this card. Naming: should have been called a 950ti. Calling it a 960 tarnishes their great record with other x60 cards released in the past. Pricing: $160 would have been a very good value new gen lower mid-range card.

A 960 should have been on par with 770 but with 3gb mem. Follow that up with 960ti to be around 6-7% slower than 970 at lower resolutions. Pricing $199 and $249 respectively.

Exactly. Some are all up in arms comparing it to previous gen 256 bit and 384 bit cards that it really isn't specced to compete against... but still can. Nvidia knows it can slide this one in at this price (similar to the $150-$160 GTX 750 Ti) and get away with it. Given the decreased manufacturing cost even if they sell fewer and leave a gap (or gaps) in the traditional lineup they'll still make money on it. All AMD can do is take old, more expensive to manufacture, less efficient hardware and rename/discount it. Takes two to tango in this scenario.