GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[Magic Carpet]

The power argument kills me, especially when you can get quality 600W+ PSU's all the time for $50 and less.

Exactly. If you care about power so much, just get a console.

e.g.

The PS4 is powered via an internal "universal" 110–240 V AC power supply,[41] with a maximum power rating of 250 W.[42] According to tests by Eurogamer, initial consoles drew approximately 80 W when operational in menu mode, rising to around 110–120 W in gameplay, with peaks of 140 W with both gameplay and menus active

 

[xthetenth]

Wait for comments like:

- Hey, but it uses less power.
- Perfect for ~300w PSUs.
- But it has a green badge all over
- etc

It's got a number like a good card's number and has a green logo. What more does it need to sell?

 

[exar333]

The power argument kills me, especially when you can get quality 600W+ PSU's all the time for $50 and less.

Again, many people have PCs that don't have easily upgradable PSUs. This is something both AMD and NV understand (but unfortunately many posters here do not).

There is a HUGE market of people with OEM machines that have 300-350w PSUs that often are proprietary or expensive to replace. The best GPU that fits their power envelope likely will get their $$$ (which companies like)...

 

[Magic Carpet]

It's got a number like a good card's number and has a green logo. What more does it need to sell?

It doesn't need anything more. It is Nvidia. It knows better. Sure as hell, this will sell well.

EDIT: And since Kepler is looking to be sort of neglected in the newer games, this Maxwell part will perform even better.

 

[xthetenth]

It doesn't need anything more. It is Nvidia. It knows better. Sure as hell, this will sell well.

EDIT: And since Kepler is looking to be sort of neglected in the newer games, this Maxwell part will perform even better.

I wonder if there's significant mindshare built up who looked at the GTX 970 and started drooling but want cheaper who're going to go for the 960 without looking at reviews. That would explain the wait.

 

[RussianSensation]

Again, many people have PCs that don't have easily upgradable PSUs. This is something both AMD and NV understand (but unfortunately many posters here do not).

There is a HUGE market of people with OEM machines that have 300-350w PSUs that often are proprietary or expensive to replace. The best GPU that fits their power envelope likely will get their $$$ (which companies like)...[/QUOTE]

What kind of informed gamers buy PCs with impossible to upgrade PSUs? Uninformed mainstream gamer that buys a $600 PC at BestBuy?

We are on a DIY forum though. Why should we care about uniformed buyers that can't research, can't upgrade their PSU, are too cheap to spend $50 for a new 500-600W unit that will last 5-10 years?

Benchmarks
After OC to 1530Mhz slightly slower than reference GTX770.

Wow, way more lackluster than some estimates of 960 being between 770 and 780! Can't even beat an R9 285 and an overclocked 290 is 53% faster than an overclocked 960. See, that's what I said most people who get videocards would pay $50-80 extra for an after-market R9 290 with way more performance and 4GB of VRAM. If someone can't afford a new $50 PSU to keep for the next 5-10 years, they are in the wrong hobby when a game costs $50.

At $199 in the DIY market, for anyone who follows videocards and isn't brand biased, this card is dead on arrival against a $260 R9 290. 2GB of VRAM makes it even worse!

Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 is $260 on Newegg right now:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-080-_-Product

A $200 GTX960 2GB just made an after-market R9 290 card look like a total bargain. :awe:

It doesn't need anything more. It is Nvidia. It knows better. Sure as hell, this will sell well.

EDIT: And since Kepler is looking to be sort of neglected in the newer games, this Maxwell part will perform even better.

But R9 200 series stayed relatively the same vs. 900 series. So even if this card looks better against a 760/770, it will still look horrible against an after-market R9 290.

Out of the box an after-market 290 = reference 290X = 94% at TPU. 770 is at 71% for 1080P.

94/71 = 32% faster! If 960 ends up slower than a 770, it's even worse. Plus, you get half the VRAM.

HD7950 3GB is still on sale on Newegg for $135. That's a crazy good value for budget gamers.

R9 280 MSI Gaming is $170 on Newegg and has 3GB of VRAM. Not sure what NV aims to do here but it's not targeting informed brand agnostic buyers, that's for sure.

 

[96Firebird]

What kind of informed gamers buy PCs with impossible to upgrade PSUs? Uninformed mainstream gamer that buys a $600 PC at BestBuy?

We are on a DIY forum though. Why should we care about uniformed buyers that can't research, can't upgrade their PSU, are too cheap to spend $50 for a new 500-600W unit that will last 5-10 years?

You've been around here long enough to have read plenty of threads where posters have pre-built machines with lackluster PSUs. You yourself even recommended a 1x6-pin/1x8-pin video card to a poster who had a PSU that only came with 1x6-pin, something I'll never quite understand. Plenty of users out there can benefit from low power requirements that these cards are supposedly coming with.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Again, many people have PCs that don't have easily upgradable PSUs. This is something both AMD and NV understand (but unfortunately many posters here do not).

There is a HUGE market of people with OEM machines that have 300-350w PSUs that often are proprietary or expensive to replace. The best GPU that fits their power envelope likely will get their $$$ (which companies like)...

That's what the 750 Ti is for. Nvidia will probably recommend a 450W PSU with this card.

 

[sm625]

$200 for a card that can barely beat a 7950, which can be had for $135? What is going on here? Is this just blind brand loyalty or what? 80 watts is not worth that. That's only 1 penny an hour. You'd have to game 6 hours a day for like 4 years to make up that cost. But who is going to do that? And not upgrade during that time?

 

[Magic Carpet]

@ RussianSensation

There is no argument, that there is anything below GTX 970 that is worth buying, considering how competitive AMD offerings are, as well as the used market for 680/770 2/4GB (which you could prolly get for half the price of the 960). But yeah, that 7950 that you mention is a killer deal, imo.

 

[RussianSensation]

@ RussianSensation

There is no argument, that there is anything below GTX 970 that is worth buying, considering how competitive AMD offerings are, as well as the used market for 680/770 2/4GB (which you could prolly get for half the price of the 960).

Just want to go on record, I don't want people later to tell me R9 290 deals go once in a blue moon, and that they can't readily find good deals in the US, etc.

Here is a PowerColor R9 290X for $252. Sure, it's not an every day price by any means but it's not impossible to find good deals on R9 290 series! I have 0 doubt in my mind there are plenty of green only buyers who will get a $200 960 over that OR readily pay $100 more for nearly identical performance in a 970 to save $10-20 a year in electricity.

You've been around here long enough to have read plenty of threads where posters have pre-built machines with lackluster PSUs. You yourself even recommended a 1x6-pin/1x8-pin video card to a poster who had a PSU that only came with 1x6-pin, something I'll never quite understand. Plenty of users out there can benefit from low power requirements that these cards are supposedly coming with.

Because his PSU could handle way more load and he could buy a $5 adapter? What's there not to understand? I am thinking outside of the box to provide the best possible recommendation.

 

[xthetenth]

$200 for a card that can barely beat a 7950, which can be had for $135? What is going on here? Is this just blind brand loyalty or what? 80 watts is not worth that. That's only 1 penny an hour. You'd have to game 6 hours a day for like 4 years to make up that cost. But who is going to do that? And not upgrade during that time?

Even then, the price disparity is just about enough to cover a power supply upgrade. I hope that the card's better than that but even more I hope that the worst case doesn't happen and the card is that mediocre and still sells well.

 

[Magic Carpet]

@ RS

Stop beating a dead horse, lol. $10-20 is just a few drinks in a bar. Nide deal you found there, albeit I expect more to surface just before or after 960 launch :thumbsup:

 

[RussianSensation]

@ RS

Stop beating a dead horse, lol. $10-20 is just a few drinks in a bar. Nide deal you found there, albeit I expect more to surface just before or after 960 launch :thumbsup:

These deals are even tempting me! I won't be back to the US for another 2 months though so I'm hoping there is a $200 R9 290X at some point. Just 1% off the Gigabyte G1 970's performance. :awe:

 

[SPBHM]

this could be the most disappointing "60" card since the 8600GT/GTS?

but to be fair, price is the main thing, GTX 760 performance is good enough, power usage is lower, it's a simpler PCB and so on, hopefully they are going to price it accordingly

 

[RussianSensation]

this could be the most disappointing "60" card since the 8600GT/GTS?

but to be fair, price is the main thing, GTX 760 performance is good enough, power usage is lower, it's a simpler PCB and so on, hopefully they are going to price it accordingly

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.

 

[Termie]

There are two variables that matter here: price and performance. Power use cuts in favor of the 960, VRAM cuts against it, but ultimately, it's going to sell based on price and performance.

If the leaked performance benchmarks are in the ballpark, we're looking at a card that would be a huge hit at $180 for a 2GB model, and a decent seller at $200. Then Nvidia could come in with a 4GB model at $230 and make another segment of the market happy.

Say what you will about the 290 vs. 970 today...the 970 was severely under-priced at launch, leading to extremely low inventory for months after release. I doubt Nvidia, its board partners, or the resellers are interested in repeating that. Especially the resellers - the 970 presented serious marketing problems for them. Point being, Nvidia simply isn't going to be as aggressive this time around.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

There are two variables that matter here: price and performance. Power use cuts in favor of the 960, VRAM cuts against it, but ultimately, it's going to sell based on price and performance.

If the leaked performance benchmarks are in the ballpark, we're looking at a card that would be a huge hit at $180 for a 2GB model, and a decent seller at $200. Then Nvidia could come in with a 4GB model at $230 and make another segment of the market happy.

Say what you will about the 290 vs. 970 today...the 970 was severely under-priced at launch, leading to extremely low inventory for months after release. I doubt Nvidia, its board partners, or the resellers are interested in repeating that. Especially the resellers - the 970 presented serious marketing problems for them. Point being, Nvidia simply isn't going to be as aggressive this time around.

What marketing problems do you mean?

 

[Termie]

What marketing problems do you mean?

Buyers aren't happy when a product is advertised, they follow a link, and then find that the product is not in stock. That's a marginal issue for Nvidia and even the board partners, but for stores like Newegg, Amazon, TigerDirect, etc., it's a logistical nightmare, and a costly one too, as they then need to respond to customer inquiries and complaints regarding stock issues.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Buyers aren't happy when a product is advertised, they follow a link, and then find that the product is not in stock. That's a marginal issue for Nvidia and even the board partners, but for stores like Newegg, Amazon, TigerDirect, etc., it's a logistical nightmare, and a costly one too, as they then need to respond to customer inquiries and complaints regarding stock issues.

Oh ok, that makes sense!

 

[geokilla]

I wonder how this GPU will do in SC2. AMD GPUs still suck in SC2. Can't run my 7950 in max graphics when I ladder

 

[WittyRemark]

That 128-bit memory bus just irks me, otherwise it's a fairly decent card, but it needs to go down below $200 ,$169/$179 perhaps?
The thing is, between $200-$270 , R9 290 is the default winner, if its not available ,then you go for 280x and then R9 280 until they go out of stock everywhere.

 

[SlickR12345]

As I've said previously in this thread before being banned for not being an Nvidia fanboy this card would suck and I mean suck majorly if its anything above $150.

At $150 I think its a decent card, it will probably beat out the 270x which costs $160 right now, threaten the 280 and 285 which cost about $190

At $200 its way too expensive, I mean you can get a 280x for about $220 these days and you can easily find 290 as well for as low at $260.

Unless it beats the 2 years old 280x significantly and by that I mean by about 20-25% in all benchmarks then its just useless.

128bit memory and only 2GB memory to ensure that it doesn't last more than 1 year after you've purchased it. I mean more and more games are using up 4GB Vram, and since console gaming isn't going away, expect the majority of games from now on to start using up 3GB and more Vram.

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.

There is no way a 128bit 2gb card can handle 1080p games. We've seen several games already using 4GB ram at 1080p and higher.

 

[RussianSensation]

There are two variables that matter here: price and performance. Power use cuts in favor of the 960, VRAM cuts against it, but ultimately, it's going to sell based on price and performance.

If the leaked performance benchmarks are in the ballpark, we're looking at a card that would be a huge hit at $180 for a 2GB model, and a decent seller at $200. Then Nvidia could come in with a 4GB model at $230 and make another segment of the market happy.

Say what you will about the 290 vs. 970 today...the 970 was severely under-priced at launch, leading to extremely low inventory for months after release. I doubt Nvidia, its board partners, or the resellers are interested in repeating that. Especially the resellers - the 970 presented serious marketing problems for them. Point being, Nvidia simply isn't going to be as aggressive this time around.

1. Price/performance on a launch review can't account that future games like Dying Light, Evolve, The Division, Witcher 3, etc. may use more than 2Gb of VRAM for Ultra textures. Textures is one of the key IQ areas that PC has over consoles and an area where often a reduction in this IQ settings results in a severe drop in graphics quality. Having seen what happened to 5870 1Gb, 8800GT 256, 8800GTS320MB, 470/480/570/580 1.28-1.5GB, we know from past experience that buying a card near the edge of minimum required VRAM to keep for 2-3 years is very dangerous.

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.

I remember this forum used to gush over a GTX460 OC that used gobbles of power, 200W! when a stock 6870 was as fast. How many people bought a 460 and overclocked it to destroy Perf/watt of a 460 against a 5850?! That all didn't matter back then, nor did perf/watt at all matter during HD4000-6000 series, until Kepler came out.

This forum went from largely ignoring power usage and Perf/watt in favour of performance and overclocking during Fermi to almost entirely ignoring longevity, price/performance, VRAM and absolute performance today in favour of perf/watt as the end-all-be-all metric of some sorts.

I guess I mean I will just out this in perspective:

970 = $330-350 with 6% more performance over a $250 290
980 = $550-600 with 20-25% more performance over R9 290X.

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.

 

[SlickR12345]

1. Price/performance on a launch review can't account that future games like Dying Light, Evolve, The Division, Witcher 3, etc. may use more than 2Gb of VRAM for Ultra textures. Textures is one of the key IQ areas that PC has over consoles and an area where often a reduction in this IQ settings results in a severe drop in graphics quality. Having seen what happened to 5870 1Gb, 8800GT 256, 8800GTS320MB, 470/480/570/580 1.28-1.5GB, we know from past experience that biying a card near the edge of minimum required VRAM to keep for 2-3 years is very dangerous.

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 firm thing vamers look at are perf/watt not price/performance or performance gained vs. Time frame.

I remember this forum used to gush over a GTX460 OC that used gobbles of power, 200W! when a stock 6870 was as fast. How many people bought a 460 and overclocked it to destroy Perf/watt of a 460 against a 5850?! That all didn't matter back then, nor did perf/watt at all matter during HD4000-6000 series, until Kepler came out.

This forum went from largely ignoring power usage and Perf/watt in favour of performance and overclocking during Fermi to almost entirely ignoring longevity, price/performance, VRAM and absolute performance today in favour of perf/watt as the end-all-be-all metric of some sorts.

I guess I mean I will just out this in perspective:

970 = $330-350 with 6% more performance over a $250 290
980 = $550-600 with 20-25% more performance over R9 290X.

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.

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