GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[jpiniero]

the whole point of the 750/750 ti was low power with no power connector needed for reference. they are not going to just toss that out and make the 950/950 ti use way more power. thats going backwards. there is zero chance that a 1208 core GM206 gpu is going to be a 950 ti.

There are rumors that the 960 is a GM204 part, which would obviously mean that any GM206 parts are branded at the 95x level. Unless they are going to sell the 950/Ti at mobile like clock speeds, being over 75W just seems unavoidable.

Maybe I am being too optimistic, but part of the thinking is that IGP performance will get high enough that selling anything slower than the 750 rebrand is not really going to be possible.

 

[Keysplayr]

Well, GK104 spanned (in order of shader count) GTX 760, GTX 660Ti/670, GTX 680, GTX 770, GTX 690.
Maybe GM204 will be similar in this regard. Perhaps GTX 960 will be GM206 and 960Ti will be GM204. No telling where that horizon line will be. All depends on yields.

 

[xLegenday]

From my understanding, nvidia delayed their launch has inventory levels for the older generation were still high.. I wonder when exactly they will announce it.

 

[godihatework]

There are rumors that the 960 is a GM204 part, which would obviously mean that any GM206 parts are branded at the 95x level. Unless they are going to sell the 950/Ti at mobile like clock speeds, being over 75W just seems unavoidable.

Maybe I am being too optimistic, but part of the thinking is that IGP performance will get high enough that selling anything slower than the 750 rebrand is not really going to be possible.

This would be an amazing paradigm shift for every computer gamer. If three years from now every developer could count on an IGP with that performance as a baseline we would really start to see games take advantage of the platform as a whole, rather than worrying about running on "gramma's email machine".

 

[jpiniero]

Well, the source is Wikipedia, but they have the 960 as GM204 and 1408 cores. $249.

 

[RussianSensation]

This would be an amazing paradigm shift for every computer gamer. If three years from now every developer could count on an IGP with that performance as a baseline we would really start to see games take advantage of the platform as a whole, rather than worrying about running on "gramma's email machine".

What? 480 a March 2010 GPU ~ 750Ti. 3 years from now would mean December 2017, or 7 years since 480 launched. Do you know how low of a bar that would mean? Even the mighty 7970Ghz will be 5 years old by then. If in 2017 game developers target 750 as the minimum, they will have failed miserably to push PC graphics of the future.

Let's look at this:

2010 - 480/580 = high end
2012 - 680/7970 = high end, 660Ti > 580 = mid-range
2014 - 290X/780Ti/980 = high end, 280X/770 = mid-range
2015 - GM200/390X will make 980 mid-range

...
By Dec 2017- GM200/390X- mid-range to low-mid-range, with 980/290X/780Ti moving from mid-range of 2015 to low end. 750 level of performance will be a total joke by end of 2017.

I would expect almost all of the cutting edge AAA games running Frostbite, UE4, etc. to be using 7970/770 and 3GB of VRAM as the minimum for end of 2017 PC games. Also, I would certainly hope that in 3 years we will see 4K gaming adoption take off. By that point 750~570/7850 level of performance will be paperweight for anything but the lowest game settings @ 30 fps.

Another way to look at it is we went from high end 480 to that level of performance in low end 750Ti in 4 years. That means you'll be able to buy a $150 GPU by Dec 20, 2017 that will be as fast as a Nov 2013 780Ti.

 

[SlickR12345]

If its not 256bit and 4GB memory, it should not even be close to $250. I mean if we are talking about a 128bit card and 2GB memory, than the best price is $120-130.

The GTX 960 with 256bit and 4GB could be good at $220-230 considering you can get an AMD 290 for $260-290

 

[crisium]

If its not 256bit and 4GB memory, it should not even be close to $250. I mean if we are talking about a 128bit card and 2GB memory, than the best price is $120-130.

The GTX 960 with 256bit and 4GB could be good at $220-230 considering you can get an AMD 290 for $260-290

Ha, this is Nvidia. They sell the 750Ti to people at $120-$130 - and some people even recommend them despite the R9 270 spanking it for a few bucks more. And it won't be $220 just because AMD offers a superior card for under $300. 960 will be ~$250 regardless of its performance relative to AMD or 700 series. It's slower than a 970, but is the "next closest card" in name, so it will be nearby in price too.

 

[RussianSensation]

Ha, this is Nvidia. They sell the 750Ti to people at $120-$130 - and some people even recommend them despite the R9 270 spanking it for a few bucks more. And it won't be $220 just because AMD offers a superior card for under $300. 960 will be ~$250 regardless of its performance relative to AMD or 700 series. It's slower than a 970, but is the "next closest card" in name, so it will be nearby in price too.

Exactly. There is no way NV will sell the 960 for $120-130 and leave a gap from $130 to $330. NV has almost always charged a big premium for similar or even slower performance. Even if 960 is slower than a 290, NV could easily charge $229-249 for it. 750Ti gets owned by 270/270X but yet NV had no trouble selling $120-150 750Ti.

 

[jpiniero]

If its not 256bit and 4GB memory, it should not even be close to $250. I mean if we are talking about a 128bit card and 2GB memory, than the best price is $120-130.

The GTX 960 with 256bit and 4GB could be good at $220-230 considering you can get an AMD 290 for $260-290

Wikipedia claims it is 4 GB and 256bit. I wouldn't be surprised if it is 3 GB and 192 bit though.

 

[godihatework]

What? 480 a March 2010 GPU ~ 750Ti. 3 years from now would mean December 2017, or 7 years since 480 launched. Do you know how low of a bar that would mean? Even the mighty 7970Ghz will be 5 years old by then. If in 2017 game developers target 750 as the minimum, they will have failed miserably to push PC graphics of the future.

Let's look at this:

2010 - 480/580 = high end
2012 - 680/7970 = high end, 660Ti > 580 = mid-range
2014 - 290X/780Ti/980 = high end, 280X/770 = mid-range
2015 - GM200/390X will make 980 mid-range

...
By Dec 2017- GM200/390X- mid-range to low-mid-range, with 980/290X/780Ti moving from mid-range of 2015 to low end. 750 level of performance will be a total joke by end of 2017.

I would expect almost all of the cutting edge AAA games running Frostbite, UE4, etc. to be using 7970/770 and 3GB of VRAM as the minimum for end of 2017 PC games. Also, I would certainly hope that in 3 years we will see 4K gaming adoption take off. By that point 750~570/7850 level of performance will be paperweight for anything but the lowest game settings @ 30 fps.

Another way to look at it is we went from high end 480 to that level of performance in low end 750Ti in 4 years. That means you'll be able to buy a $150 GPU by Dec 20, 2017 that will be as fast as a Nov 2013 780Ti.

BS.

Lowest common denominator for most games is going to be IGP quality. Your AAA's may stipulate a higher level - but that will be for recommended settings.

These games have to run on most systems. If you don't think Intel and amd built in graphics aren't a major driver of minimum performance you're crazy.

Tell me again, how much of the market actually has a dedicated graphics card?

Edit


"The attach rate of GPUs including integrated and AIBs was 139% which is up 3.2% from last quarter. 139% may seem too high, but practically all desktop, notebook, and x86 tablets ship with some form of integrated GPU, but many desktops and notebooks also have extra graphics, and some have more than one AIB attached as well, which is why the number is over 100%. 32% of PCs have discrete GPUs which means 68% of PCs sold are relying on integrated graphics"

From anandtechs 2Q14 article

 

[DooKey]

Exactly. There is no way NV will sell the 960 for $120-130 and leave a gap from $130 to $330. NV has almost always charged a big premium for similar or even slower performance. Even if 960 is slower than a 290, NV could easily charge $229-249 for it. 750Ti gets owned by 270/270X but yet NV had no trouble selling $120-150 750Ti.

Guess you need to keep buying AMD with the 35% then.

 

[boozzer]

Ha, this is Nvidia. They sell the 750Ti to people at $120-$130 - and some people even recommend them despite the R9 270 spanking it for a few bucks more. And it won't be $220 just because AMD offers a superior card for under $300. 960 will be ~$250 regardless of its performance relative to AMD or 700 series. It's slower than a 970, but is the "next closest card" in name, so it will be nearby in price too.

there are alot of people like that even on forums like these, where you would expect some common sense because we know better.

 

[tential]

there are alot of people like that even on forums like these, where you would expect some common sense because we know better.

There's a thread like that right now actually....

 

[RussianSensation]

Guess you need to keep buying AMD with the 35% then.

I have no problem with that. The amount of money I saved buying AMD in the last 6 years is a lot, despite dabbling with 470 SLI along the way as I got them for $210 a piece just 3 months after their $350 MSRP launch on March 2010. Despite some people trying to portray me as an AMD fanboy, I will get/recommend NV if there is a great deal.

I don't know when I will upgrade next but if AMD continues its historical trends, I should be able to get 2 of AMD's 2nd best cards with 95% of the performance of their flagships for barely more money than 1 NV's flagship card. Considering how competitive AMD is with CF at 4K, it's going to be NV that needs to prove to me it can actually compete. Right now with 290X at $600, 980 SLI at $1100 definitely cannot compete at 4K. You spend almost double and don't get a more playable experience at 4K without overclocking the 980s.

Who knows if AMD will start separating x90 series from x90X by more than 5% but if 6950 vs. 6970, 7950 vs. 7970 and 290 vs. 290X are any indication, then 390/490/590 should be awesome high-end bang for the buck cards.

As far as 960 goes, it will probably prove to be extremely popular at $249 for the mainstream gamer but considering R9 290 regularly went for $250-275 since early October and recent sales of 290 at $200-210, personally for me 960 at $249 even if it = reference 290 performance is not very interesting coming off 3 year old 7970s. I am not the target market for a 960 though so I won't infairly judge it.

Mu main point is it was easy for AMD to make Fermi look outdated, overpriced, lacking features and inefficient with GCN vs. Fermi. It isn't very hard for NV right now with 960/970/980 going against older AMD tech. It makes it hard to make a fair assessment against how good NV's next gen cards are since we don't have next gen AMD from the same generation to compare yet.

How will these mid-range Maxwell cards look against the real competition, R9 300 series? That's the more interesting question we can't answer yet.

I am going to guess that most reviews will compare after-market 960 against a reference throttling 290, where 960 will match or even beat a 290 at 1080p, and the declare it an automatic winner in the $200-300 space. There is no doubt in my mind that's how most reviews will play out.
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/27.html

 

[RussianSensation]

BS.

Lowest common denominator for most games is going to be IGP quality. Your AAA's may stipulate a higher level - but that will be for recommended settings.

These games have to run on most systems. If you don't think Intel and amd built in graphics aren't a major driver of minimum performance you're crazy.

Tell me again, how much of the market actually has a dedicated graphics card?

Edit


"The attach rate of GPUs including integrated and AIBs was 139% which is up 3.2% from last quarter. 139% may seem too high, but practically all desktop, notebook, and x86 tablets ship with some form of integrated GPU, but many desktops and notebooks also have extra graphics, and some have more than one AIB attached as well, which is why the number is over 100%. 32% of PCs have discrete GPUs which means 68% of PCs sold are relying on integrated graphics"

From anandtechs 2Q14 article

Lowest requirements in AAA games hardly mean anything though. DAI has 4870/8800 GT as minimum.
http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/pc-systems-requirements-revealed

Sure, maybe at 800x600, with everything on low at 30 fps you might run DAI on an 8800GT. What matters is how well the game scales in terms of graphics and GPU power. If in 2017 developers target 750, they will have failed since that's essentially 570 level of peformance. Developers will target mid-range and high end cards, but they'll test 750 to see how the game runs to see if it meets the minimum spec when everything is turned down to the lowest. When the next BF5 game is being made, they are not targetting IGP as the lowest common denominator. If that were the case, Crysis 3, BF4, Metro, Ryse Son of Rome, AC Unity, Tomb Raider would target IGP's due to their market share. Clearly when these games were made the developers could care less how these games ran on Intel IGP. With so much emphasis on technicals/graphics to sell games these days, it would be a suicide for a AAA developer besides Blizzard to target IGP.

You think CDPR targets IGP when they make Witcher 3? Most of the time how the developer actually intends you to run the game is reflected in Recommended system requirements. Using DAI again, that goes up from 8800GT to a GTX660/7870. That means for a late 2014 game, we are already above 750 as minimum required to play the game with any kind of enjoyable level. If you enjoy playing games at 1024x768 everything on low, sure maybe 750 will be good, but for all intents and purposes 750 will be worthless for cutting edge AAA games of Dec 2017. Of course a 750 will be fine for playing World of Tanks, LoL or Warcraft expansion or SC2 Legacy of the Void expansion in 2017. Will it play AC 2017 well? Not a chance.

 

[raghu78]

If in 2017 developers target 750, they will have failed since that's essentially 570 level of peformance. Developers will target mid-range and high end cards, but they'll test 750 to see how the game runs to see if it meets the minimum spec when everything is turned down to the lowest. When the next BF5 game is being made, they are not targetting IGP as the lowest common denominator. If that were the case, Crysis 3, BF4, Metro, Ryse Son of Rome, AC Unity, Tomb Raider would target IGP's due to their market share. Clearly when these games were made the developers could care less how these games ran on Intel IGP. With so much emphasis on technicals/graphics to sell games these days, it would be a suicide for a AAA developer besides Blizzard to target IGP.

You think CDPR targets IGP when they make Witcher 3? Most of the time how the developer actually intends you to run the game is reflected in Recommended system requirements. Using DAI again, that goes up from 8800GT to a GTX660/7870. That means for a late 2014 game, we are already above 750 as minimum required to play the game with any kind of enjoyable level. If you enjoy playing games at 1024x768 everything on low, sure maybe 750 will be good, but for all intents and purposes 750 will be worthless for cutting edge AAA games of Dec 2017. Of course a 750 will be fine for playing World of Tanks, LoL or Warcraft expansion or SC2 Legacy of the Void expansion in 2017. Will it play AC 2017 well? Not a chance.

Nvidia's straight GM204 die shrink at 16FF+ will most probably run below 75w and not require a PCI-E power connector. the successor to GM204 at 16FF+ will easily be 2x the perf and require lesser power than GM204 given the fact that TSMC 16FF+ cuts power by 70% wrt 28HPM at same transistor perf. Alternatively Nvidia could aim for > 2x the perf of GM204 at sub 200W

http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/16nm.htm

The GPUs of 2016 will make even a GTX 980 look ages old in terms of performance. Then comes the Pascal behemoth by late 2016 bringing HBM, 2.5D packaging, NVLink and a grounds up DX12 architecture. Thats going to ratchet up the performance another notch.

By 2016 we are looking at AMD APUs with HBM and GCN 2.0 (or even more improved arch) with 1024 - 1280 sp and these will be close to HD 7950 - HD 7950 boost perf.

2016 and 2017 will represent some of the biggest leaps ever seen in the history of GPUs. Even Intel is going to reach for higher performance with GT4e with Skylake. So any developer who is looking at a game in 2017 should target GTX 980 performance for a reasonably good gameplay experience. By that i mean medium - high settings and no AA.

 

[Pinstripe]

So any developer who is looking at a game in 2017 should target GTX 980 performance for a reasonably good gameplay experience. By that i mean medium - high settings and no AA.

Developers will still target Xbox One and PS4 at that time, and throw in some little miniscule extras for the PC.

Like, switch settings from High to Ultra to take advantage of exclusive features of your shiny new $600 video card, have 3x less performance but still only get the same visuals as before. "I see a little difference", says the hardware enthusiast. "I don't give a shit" says the gamer.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Developers will still target Xbox One and PS4 at that time, and throw in some little miniscule extras for the PC.

Like, switch settings from High to Ultra to take advantage of exclusive features of your shiny new $600 video card, have 3x less performance but still only get the same visuals as before. "I see a little difference", says the hardware enthusiast. "I don't give a shit" says the gamer.

I expect a similar rerun as well, like previous with 32xAA etc.

 

[godihatework]

Developers will still target Xbox One and PS4 at that time, and throw in some little miniscule extras for the PC.

Like, switch settings from High to Ultra to take advantage of exclusive features of your shiny new $600 video card, have 3x less performance but still only get the same visuals as before. "I see a little difference", says the hardware enthusiast. "I don't give a shit" says the gamer.

exactly this. And as both essentially have IGP's...

Discrete graphics will never be the sole target for all but the most AAA of AAA games.

So an increase in the floor of the graphics processing power of the most modest machines can only help those in the "gaming community".

Edit - ultimately a high tide raises all ships.

 

[shady28]

Ha, this is Nvidia. They sell the 750Ti to people at $120-$130 - and some people even recommend them despite the R9 270 spanking it for a few bucks more. And it won't be $220 just because AMD offers a superior card for under $300. 960 will be ~$250 regardless of its performance relative to AMD or 700 series. It's slower than a 970, but is the "next closest card" in name, so it will be nearby in price too.

Except for those who have a top tier power supply from a custom built machine, an R9 270 would be a really dumb card to recommend. Which is to say, it's a poor choice for 95% of the folks out there. For those who buy their machines from Best Buy, Frys, etc as a pre-built HP / Dell / Lenovo / Asus / Acer etc - the 750 / 750 Ti is by far the best game in town.

Why? Because those systems typically have 350 - 450W power supplies. A 750 or 750 Ti doesn't even need a special power connector, with TDP of 55-80W it can run off the PCI-E bus. An r9 270 runs 150-180W TDP, and most sound like a vacuum cleaner. I would never recommend anyone outside a hardcore enthusiast have something like that in their HP / Dell / Lenovo etc PC. It's just asking for it to become unstable.

 

[RussianSensation]

Except for those who have a top tier power supply from a custom built machine, an R9 270 would be a really dumb card to recommend. Which is to say, it's a poor choice for 95% of the folks out there. For those who buy their machines from Best Buy, Frys, etc as a pre-built HP / Dell / Lenovo / Asus / Acer etc - the 750 / 750 Ti is by far the best game in town.

Why? Because those systems typically have 350 - 450W power supplies. A 750 or 750 Ti doesn't even need a special power connector, with TDP of 55-80W it can run off the PCI-E bus. An r9 270 runs 150-180W TDP, and most sound like a vacuum cleaner. I would never recommend anyone outside a hardcore enthusiast have something like that in their HP / Dell / Lenovo etc PC. It's just asking for it to become unstable.

So much incorrect information in 1 post:

1) TDP does not equal power consumption. An R9 270 averages about 111W in games and peaks at 121W:
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/ASUS/R9_270_Direct_Cu_II_OC/24.html

You can easily run it on a BestBuy system with a 300-350W PSU. You also made a point of needing a top tier 450W to run an R9 270, while in reality a TOP tier 450W will run an i5/7 paired with a 7970Ghz/780/R9 290. You really need to learn what TDP is and how high end PSUs are rated.

Even the R9 270X averages 122W in games and peaks at 135W:
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/MSI/R9_270X_Gaming/22.html

Your stated 150-180W power usage implication is more in line with an R9 280/7950, not a 270 class card.

2) You said an R9 270 sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Really? I would love to buy a vacuum cleaner that runs 35dBA at full load:
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/ASUS/R9_270_Direct_Cu_II_OC/25.html

Your post is ignorant since it implies almost all R9 270 series are loud. Why can't a gamer buy an MSI Gaming R9 270X, 27dBA at full load, quieter than the MSI Gaming 970 - which itself is one of the quietest cards ever made! Most 270 after-market cards are actually cool and quiet.
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/MSI/R9_270X_Gaming/23.html

3) You flat out ignored the vast performance difference with the 750Ti by simply discounting R9 270/270X based on factors you just made up/what you thought was correct info. Now that we know the facts that 270/270X run cool and quiet and don't use anywhere near the amount of power you quoted, how do they stack up against the 750Ti?

R9 270 is 31% faster and R9 270X is 44% faster at 1080p:
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/...vidia/6/#diagramm-rating-1920-1080-4xaa-16xaf

Considering gamers pay $550 over $330 970 and $280 290X for just 15-20% more performance, R9 270/270X represent a tremendous value as regular sub-$150 cards compared to the 750Ti. A 750Ti is a great buy at $80-85, but at $120-150, it's total garbage.

Even in older reviews which don't account for frequent sales and rebates, the R9 265 is faster than the 750Ti, and chosen as the superior gaming card at $150. But now 270/270X can be found for $100-150 so frequently that if one really wants the best sub-$150 gaming card, it's easy to find them at these prices.

"This makes the R7 265 the only viable option from AMD in the $150-$200 territory, but that's okay because it's 13% faster than the GTX 750 Ti at same price, making AMD's card an obvious choice."
http://www.techspot.com/guides/912-best-graphics-cards-2014/page7.html

Your post is the reason NV continues to have nearly 70% market share - average PC consumers don't do enough good research, most of these consumers believe what they hear from someone on the Internet or in real life like your made up noise and power usage characteristics of R9 270 series, and in the end get 30-40% less performance with NV, while truly believing they got a good deal/card!

Your post also highlights another major point of people who for 5-10 years will keep paying huge price premiums for slow low power cards -- their reluctance to spend $26-35 on a new PSU:

EVGA 750W for $33:
http://slickdeals.net/f/7535806-evg...ular-power-supply-33ar-promo-code-fs-frys?v=1

XFX 550W for $26:
http://slickdeals.net/f/7529716-xfx...550sxxb9-25-99-after-rebate-free-shipping?v=1

Thermaltake 650W for $30:
http://slickdeals.net/f/7530706-the...-after-price-match-and-rebate-microcenter?v=1

It's no wonder that so many people on our forums think the average NV gamer is an uninformed consumer when they can't do/don't bother to do proper research and can't even think outside the box when it comes to buying a good $35 PSU but have no problems paying $130-150 for lower power cards - NV marketing FTW!

It's not surprising that NV will get a ton of sales with the 960 from the same customer pool that eats NV brand marketing and perf/watt for breakfast. I can already imagine people posting on forums all over the net that you need a 700-850W PSU to run an R9 290 because "insert AMD/AIB recommends it." Reminds me of the days when people were dumb enough believe that you needed a high quality 480W to run a 6800Ultra.

 

[96Firebird]

All good and well, except the 750 Ti is regularly below $100.

 

[Leyawiin]

You can easily run it on a BestBuy system with a 300-350W PSU.

While I agree with much of your post regarding value between a GTX 750 Ti and R9 270, I wouldn't feel comfortable running or recommending anything but a GTX 750 Ti at most for a typical 300W cheapo pre-built. Yeah, it might run an R9 270, but reliably and for the long haul the GTX 750 Ti would be the better choice. You can get them quite often for a little over a $100 with a rebate. Decent 400W on up? Don't worry about it - get the AMD.

 

[Blue_Max]

The 750TI has a great market - the NON-TECH people who buy name-brand machines and sure as heck won't be changing power supplies!

The R9-270 wins for the person willing to get their hands dirty and get a decent power supply in there. Especially since, if the motherboard allows it, you can get a SECOND R9-270 to crossfire for some VERY nice performance! (That's my plan! Heck, I'll do that today! Merry Christmas, me!)