GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[fleshconsumed]

Uhh, 960 street price is $175 right now off newegg. Not that hard to get either. Which does put it cheaper than a r9 280 which it is faster than.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=30

I may be searching wrong but I do not see any for $175 at newegg unless you're counting VisaCheckOut $25 off coupon, but the same coupon can be applied to R9-290 as well.

Not sure what all the fuss is over. At resolutions of 1440p or lower it keeps up slightly behind a 280x and for quite a bit less. I don't really see the card as a failure or priced that badly, especially when they can be had for $175 right now pretty easy.

Where do you get this? 960 is somewhere between 280 and 280x at 1080p. At 1440p it falls further behind with performance roughly equal to 280. The 1440p performance is indication of where this card will be heading as games push 2GB VRAM limit.

The only people I can honestly recommend this card to are people who are severely cash constrained or who do not have good quality 400W PSU. And even as long as power supply can handle it 280x makes more sense as it is faster out of the box and has more RAM.

Also, those OEM systems also only come with one six pin PCIe connector, so a 290x is out of the picture.

I'm not denying that many of the OEM PSUs cannot handle 290X, but people also need to stop with the FUD that you need 600W to run a single 290x. You do not. All you need is a decent 400W power supply.

 

[RussianSensation]

I don't get the hate. I paid $180 for my GTX 660. This would be a great upgrade for me once the price drops by $20.

27-30% faster than a 2 years old GTX660 is one of the most disappointing advancements in GPUs. The average increase in GPU speed is 30-35% per annum, which means a 960 is half as good. You have low standards, about 2x lower than the market. Funny enough $50 more gets you 50% more performance over the 960 with an after-market 290, but you can't comprehend this because you hate AMD> and you can't comprehend upgrading your POS OEM PSU for $50 over 10 years of ownership life to not be limited to your GPU upgrades. Congrats, get a console or alternatively learn nothing on this forum from experienced PC builders. :thumbsup: Every thread related to AMD, all you do is show complete negativity towards the company. It shows just how clueless you really are when you can't even accept that $50 extra buys one a $250 card that's as fast as GTX960 SLI that itself costs $400! You have no argument whatsoever because you are not brand agnostic and objective in your posts.

You even mention how a GTX960 would be a great upgrade for you if it drops to $180, which implies your standards are so low that you'd pay almost the same price as a 660 to get just 30% more performance more than 2 years later. Sorry, but some of us have standards. When I upgraded from HD4890 to GTX470 @ 750mhz, I really wanted 2X the performance in 1.5 years. It's not about GTX470 OC because I would have been just as satisfied with an HD5870. The point is based on the track record of GPU advancements, there are certain trends that NV and AMD pay attention to. In the case of a 960, its relative performance to a 970/980 is WORSE than any mid-range AMD or NV videocard ever was compared to the flagship cards. You can't see this because all you see is AMD vs. NV, not what's good for the consumer. Even if AMD and NV tried to sell you underwhelming GTX285/960 cards, you can't even sow the ability to think for yourself. I can, which is why I recommend gamers upgrade to an R9 290/970 and skip the entire rip-off $200 GPU segment. You, well you defend overpriced products like a 960. Let me know how a 285/960 do in games like Evolve, Dying Light and The Witcher 3 that produce additional load on 2GB of VRAM.

And for those of us running OEM systems with 450w PSU's?

For 2-3 years all you do it talk absolute trash about AMD products.I never realized how clueless and close-minded you really are. 500-600W EVGA/XFX PSUs are going for $50-60, and one can even get brands like Antec/Lepa/Seasonic/OCZ for $50-60 on sale all the time. This isn't about AMD vs. NV as many great cards from both brands use more than 200W of power. Any PC enthusiasts that loves graphics cards would truly appreciate what a card like a GTX480 did for PC gaming despite it using a lot of power:

1) it showed us that forward looking graphical effects like tessellation are worth paying attention to;
2) it showed us that having extra VRAM (1.5GB vs. 1GB) is something to pay attention to for future titles
3) it showed us why overclocking is something extra that we can take advantage of and enjoy!
4) it showed us that a good graphics card is not always about top-of-the-line performance (i.e., that you need to balance reference noise levels and performance).

For all that is wrong with the GTX480, I still respect it. You share nothing of the same for any AMD GPUs.

GTX480 is one of the best videocards of all time for many reasons, lessons and trends. However, in almost all of your posts, the only thing you see in AMD products is negativity. You are so brain-washed that you cannot even see the good in bad products. That is the very definition of a PC enthusiast that no longer cares about tech, but cares more about brands. A true PC enthusiast appreciates something about any company's product, because no product is perfect.

If you can't even figure out how to upgrade and build your own rig with a 3rd party $50 PSU 550W+ that could last 5-10 years, what in the world are you doing on a DIY forum where we pick individual components to build our own rig from the ground up?

Honestly, if all you care about is power usage, go get a console like the Wii U or PS4, but I guess you can't do that either since the APUs inside those consoles are made by AMD> Bummer. :thumbsdown:

It would honestly save everyone on our forum a lot of time if you just explained why you hate AMD or why you prefer Intel or NV. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time with your opinion that has no facts whatsoever to back it up in every AMD-related thread you comment on.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Uhh, 960 street price is $175 right now off newegg. Not that hard to get either. Which does put it cheaper than a r9 280 which it is faster than.

Not sure what all the fuss is over. At resolutions of 1440p or lower it keeps up slightly behind a 280x and for quite a bit less. I don't really see the card as a failure or priced that badly, especially when they can be had for $175 right now pretty easy.

Where are you seeing it for $175 on newegg? The cheapest I see on newegg is $205.38 shipped for a GTX 960.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125772

 

[Phynaz]

27-30% faster than a 2 years old GTX660 is one of the most disappointing advancements in GPUs. The average increase in GPU speed is 30-35% per annum, which means a 960 is half as good. You have low standards, about 2x lower than the market. Funny enough $50 more gets you 50% more performance over the 960 with an after-market 290, but you can't comprehend this because you hate AMD> and you can't comprehend upgrading your POS OEM PSU for $50 over 10 years of ownership life to not be limited to your GPU upgrades. Congrats, get a console or alternatively learn nothing on this forum from experienced PC builders. :thumbsup: Every thread related to AMD, all you do is show complete negativity towards the company. It shows just how clueless you really are when you can't even accept that $50 extra buys one a $250 card that's as fast as GTX960 SLI that itself costs $400! You have no argument whatsoever because you are not brand agnostic and objective in your posts.

You even mention how a GTX960 would be a great upgrade for you if it drops to $180, which implies your standards are so low that you'd pay almost the same price as a 660 to get just 30% more performance more than 2 years later. Sorry, but some of us have standards. When I ugpgraded from HD4890 to GTX470 @ 750mhz, I really wanted 2X the performance in 1.5 years. It's not about GTX470 OC because I would have been just as satisfied with an HD5870. The point is based on the track record of GPU advancements, there are certain trends that NV and AMD pay attention to. In the case of a 960, its relative performance to a 970/980 is WORSE than any mid-range AMD or NV videocard ever was compared to the flagship cards. You can't see this because all you see is AMD vs. NV, not what's good for the consumer.



For 2-3 years all you do it talk absolute trash about AMD products.I never realized how clueless and close-minded you really are. 500-600W EVGA/XFX PSUs are going for $50-60, and one can even get brands like Antec have for $50-60 on sale all the time. This isn't about AMD vs. NV as many great cards from both brands use more than 200W of power.

If you can't even figure out how to upgrade and build your own rig with a 3rd party $50 PSU 550W+ that could last 5-10 years, what in the world are you doing on a DIY forum where we pick individual components to build our own rig from the ground up?

Honestly, if all you care about is power usage, go get a console like the Wii U or PS4, but I guess you can't do that either since the APUs inside those consoles are made by AMD> Bummer. :thumbsdown:

Who pissed in your Wheaties? I've been called an AMD fanboy right in this very forum. I've actaully owned more ATI/AMD card than Nvidia cards.

I've always repsected your posts, but geez man maybe you should take a break because you're losing it.

And yes, power consumption is very important to me. You'll have to deal with the fact that my priorities are not the same as yours. Talk about being closed minded, your entire post is closed minded.

Finally, this is generally an enthusiast forum, not a DIY forum.

 

[ZGR]

The GTX 960 seems like the GTX 650 ti successor.

 

[Leyawiin]

- Jesus! Fact: a stock 280x is faster than a 960OC. This IS FACT. Deal with it! 960OC is stupidly close to the stock 280x in terms of pricing.

- 960 SLI is pointless. You are better off with a single 290x.

- 285 is equivalent with a 960OC in terms of performance.

Nvidia is milking the cow like usual. They are overpricing their product. Nothing new here. I've praised maxwell as being highly efficient, but this is not enough to get away with this high pricing. Until the price wars start, nvidia will be milking uninformed people with the overpriced 960.

I expect a future 3GB 960ti to be only a little faster than a 280x and priced a little higher than a 290. After all, this nvidia we are talking about...

R9 280X is $40 more at the least. Multi-GPU is pointless in general. R9 285 is like a couple percent faster for its similar price (I'm sure someone will trot out MIR examples), extra 128 bit and extra 75W of power consumption. That said, I don't want it - too weak with too little memory. The Red Apologist posts just get a little much.

 

[Vesku]

I think the underwhelming nature of the 960 has been covered quite extensively. My last comment in this thread will be some perspective on the whole power consumption thing.

If someone was selling a retail boxed warrantied 780 for ~$30-50 more than a 960 would you tell them "No thanks uses too much power."? Because that's the gaming performance (or better) of the R9 290.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I think the underwhelming nature of the 960 has been covered quite extensively. My last comment in this thread will be some perspective on the whole power consumption thing.

If someone was selling a retail boxed warrantied 780 for ~$30-50 more than a 960 would you tell them "No thanks uses too much power."? Because that's the gaming performance (or better) of the R9 290.

How amazing I'm still barely getting any more performance for $200 compared to the 7950B I got almost 2 years ago at the same price.

 

[Keysplayr]

How amazing I'm still barely getting any more performance for $200 compared to the 7950B I got almost 2 years ago at the same price.

What was the launch price of the 7950B? Or 7950?

 

[Paul98]

How amazing I'm still barely getting any more performance for $200 compared to the 7950B I got almost 2 years ago at the same price.

It is quite sad, when the R9 series was getting ready to come out you could get a 7950 for around 170. That was more than a year ago.

 

[fleshconsumed]

R9 280X is $40 more at the least. Multi-GPU is pointless in general. R9 285 is like a couple percent faster for its similar price (I'm sure someone will trot out MIR examples), extra 128 bit and extra 75W of power consumption. That said, I don't want it - too weak with too little memory. The Red Apologist posts just get a little much.

Nonsense. Stop spreading lies. For $40 more you get aftermarket R9 290. And for the same price as 960 you get aftermarket R9-280X.

$240 gets you aftermarket R9-290
$205 gets you aftermarket R9-280X

 

[Pneumothorax]

Nonsense. Stop spreading lies. For $40 more you get aftermarket R9 290. And for the same price as 960 you get aftermarket R9-280X.

$240 gets you aftermarket R9-290
$205 gets you aftermarket R9-280X

It get's worse, the very same people who would gladly hand Nvidia an extra $200 for a measly 15% improvement going from the 970 to 980 are poopooing the $40 difference between the 960 vs the 290. The difference is that you're getting almost 50% faster performance for that $40.

 

[StrangerGuy]

What was the launch price of the 7950B? Or 7950?

I didn't knew the 960 existed when the 7950B was launched or when it was $200. :whiste:

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think the underwhelming nature of the 960 has been covered quite extensively. My last comment in this thread will be some perspective on the whole power consumption thing.

If someone was selling a retail boxed warrantied 780 for ~$30-50 more than a 960 would you tell them "No thanks uses too much power."? Because that's the gaming performance (or better) of the R9 290.

This is a totally pointless example. Obviously if you can get a much more powerful card for a negligible difference in price you would take it. But that situation is not going to happen anyway.

Power consumption does matter if the performance is similar. Personally, I just like efficiency. I am willing to pay a small amount more for lower power usage at the same performance, even if the electricity savings will not make up the difference. Of course, there are limits to how much more I am willing to pay, but it is a factor.

Honestly, this thread is basically all or nothing thinking. The 960 may be disappointing, but the venom directed towards it is just over the top. Just because is it not great, doesnt mean it has to be awful. It is a so/so card that is currently priced too high for its performance. It is a bit unfair though to pick special sale prices on older cards and compare with a new card that has just come out. Comparing prices on New Egg the 280x is 20 to 40 dollars more expensive, and gives maybe 20 or 30 percent overall better performance. Definitely a better performance/dollar card, but I dont feel the 960 is as awful as some in this thread are so vociferously trying to paint it. Ultimately, the price will probably come down. I dont really get the outrage. If someone thinks it is lacking in performance, they are certainly free to buy from AMD.

 

[96Firebird]

Great post frozen.

Also, the 280X is ~15% faster than the 960 at 1080p.

 

[redzo]

R9 280X is $40 more at the least. Multi-GPU is pointless in general. R9 285 is like a couple percent faster for its similar price (I'm sure someone will trot out MIR examples), extra 128 bit and extra 75W of power consumption. That said, I don't want it - too weak with too little memory. The Red Apologist posts just get a little much.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=30

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=30

Let me rephrase that: Multi gpu with a 2GB GPU is retarded now days.

 

[Ranulf]

RS, you forgot to mention cable/sat tv boxes. I have a comcast/motorola cable tv box that in "standby" mode pulls 11.1w from the wall. When I technically turn it on to actually watch tv, its using 11.9w. If I unplug the thing it will take 15-30 minutes for it to get a full connection back for the on screen tv guide/on-demand functions. It costs me $12.5 a year (13cents per kwh rate).

Anyway, I dont see price drops happening before the end of the year. Nvidia isn't going to drop prices unless they have to. I think its going to be like the 750ti or the 760. It'll go down 6-8 months after its out but I bet no more than $175 for 2015.

 

[WittyRemark]

And for those of us running OEM systems with 450w PSU's?

Ah the good ole OEM card eh?
Everyone at AT seems to have OEM PCs, and they're enthusiasts.
Anyway , I won't argue with you there, it's for people who a 450w PSU ,but even then I'd recommend them a gtx750ti or R260X.

 

[Qwertilot]

True about the 750ti, although this does move from 'workable' 1080p gaming on the 750ti to 'comfortable'. More power too of course.

It looks like an efficiency based card, so the fastest card possible at ~120w. That idea does seem to annoy some!

In fact I would rather have one of these (or even my current 750ti given my current monitor) than a 780. The extra performance wouldn't mean anything to me, but the noise would

 

[Broburger]

The card is faster than the 760, only 120w, and it's about $50 cheaper than what the 760 was priced at launch. I think it's a good deal.

 

[RussianSensation]

True about the 750ti, although this does move from 'workable' 1080p gaming on the 750ti to 'comfortable'. More power too of course.

It looks like an efficiency based card, so the fastest card possible at ~120w. That idea does seem to annoy some!

In fact I would rather have one of these (or even my current 750ti given my current monitor) than a 780. The extra performance wouldn't mean anything to me, but the noise would

There is no annoyance that a 960 is efficient. What's new at AT are people now disregarding performance, price/preformance and VRAM, all objective measurements that directly impact IQ and FPS. If going from a 750Ti to a 780Ti for you would provide no benefit, then of course you see no value in the extra performance. In that case a 960 is also pointless. A gamer could simply buy a 780/290 and limit FPS where no extra performance is beneficial. You can't add extra VRAM or performance to a 960 OC for Witcher 3, Evovle, Dying Light.

If we start using perf/watt as the overriding metric for GPU purchases, we will have a situation where a 750Ti smokes a 295X2, 290X, 780Ti, then a 750Ti is an overall better gaming card? That's not logical. There are plenty quiet after-market cards. I am not even sure your statement that a 750Ti runs quieter than say a high end cards is necessarily true.

If someone prefers Perf/watt over videocard performance, that is perfectly fine. What's not fine at all is when certain reviewers start elevating subjective metrics like power usage and perf/watt in a review but place less emphasis on objective metrics such as VRAM, price/performance and performance. That means the reviewer himself is no longer objective. Now, how many reviewers said:

"960 is an excellent card for a MiniITX case, if you have a low quality 400W OEM PSU, if you spend a lot of your gaming time in NV-favoured titles like WOW, but otherwise you get a lot more for your money for $50 extra, 40-50% more performance and double your VRAM with a cool and quiet after-market R9 290."

Did you see that from sites like TPU or TechReport or Tom's? Their reviews come off as trying to sell the reader on the 960 at all costs, not objectively providing the reader with clearly defined choices and pros/cons of each. Making generalized statements like all AMD cards hot and loud by these sites is even worse as it runs counter to facts. It's not the 960 that pissed people off in itself, but how the professional sites are covering the $180-250 GPU landscape; and the shocking defense for this card after nearly universal trashing the similarly performing 285 received.

Double standards, lack of objectivity with reviewers starting to personally elevate subjective metrics over objective metrics, hypocrisy of ignoring frame times when 960 tanks in them -- all these are why people are upset about the coverage on the 960.

It seems to me some of these top North American sites are prohibited for some reason to give a product a bad review. Just as it was valid for AT to not recommend a reference 290 for noise levels, it's perfectly valid too not recommend a card due horrible price/performance and gimped VRAM. Professionals at Hexus, TechSpot and Linus all DID!

Tom's, TPU, TechReport didn't. The conclusion, which sites actually provided objective pros/cons and compared the KEY buying metrics fairly? See the overall picture now? If a professional site elevates perf/watt and power usage over performance and price/performance, they should clearly state their preference in the review. Otherwise, it sounds like someone pays them marketing $ to sell the product. That's not objective journalism.

And not even touching on 2GB of VRAM when games like Shadow of Mordor and AC Unity clearly show actual limitations already is just mind-numbing ignorance by these same reviewers. There is no way any objective reviewer who wanted to be honest with his readership would not have mentioned it as at least a 1 line point.

 

[RussianSensation]

The card is faster than the 760, only 120w, and it's about $50 cheaper than what the 760 was priced at launch. I think it's a good deal.

760 came out June 15, 2013. 960 offers only 9% more performance on Jan 22, 2015 for just $50 less. Can you name any time in the history of x60 NV cards where this happened? The 960 is the biggest flop out of all x60 series cards NV ever made. How is that even remotely impressive after NV gave us $699 780Ti performance in 10 months in a $330 970?

Secondly, how the 960 fares against the 660/760 is just half the story. You have to also look at the competitive landscape. For example, 7970 destroyed the 6970, but the 680 was even faster. 960 is better than a 760, but compared to a $250 290, it's an absolute joke of a gaming proposition for anyone who isn't brand loyal.

 

[Keysplayr]

I didn't knew the 960 existed when the 7950B was launched or when it was $200. :whiste:

Ah, avoidance. I don't know where you got your info from, but nobody on this planet actually said that. It just manifested in your own mind.

So, back to the question.
What was the launch price of the 7950, 7950B or 7970? (added 7970).

7950 launched January 30, 2012 for 449.00.
7950B launched August 14, 2012 for 329.00
7970 launched January 09, 2012 for 549.00
7970 GHz launched June 22, 2012 for 499.00
GTX680 launched March 22, 2012 for 499.00
GTX770 launched May 30th 2013 for 399.00

Today, we have the GTX960 that meets or outperforms all of these cards for 200.00 or less.

So what bought you performance between 650Ti Boost and GTX660 and 7850/7870 2 or even three years ago,
buys you GTX770/280X performance at 1080p today. I don't know why some folks don't have a wider train of thought. Some are pretty narrow in their thinking.

960 isn't a 4K colossus. It's a 1080p card. It is priced decently. Who cares what you could get used or outdated for the same price today, that holds little logic to me for an enthusiast. I understand that it is gospel for some. I respect that. Do what makes you happy and that is all that matters.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Otherwise, it sounds like someone pays them marketing $ to sell the product. That's not objective journalism.

There was somebody asking Wiz as to why there is no 280 presented in the charts, to which he simply replied:

Because AMD didn't send me a R9 280

Still expect him to be objective?

Just as it was valid for AT to not recommend a reference 290 for noise levels, it's perfectly valid too not recommend a card due horrible price/performance and gimped VRAM. Professionals at Hexus, TechSpot and Linus all DID!

This is why, people should spend time checking multiple review sites as well as asking questions on forums such as this.

 

[RussianSensation]

^ It's not his fault that AMD didn't send a 280, but he made other inexcusable comments in his 960 reviews when he gave it the Editor's Choice!

He gave Gigabyte G1 980 a 9.7/10, when it measuresd 43dBA at load:
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX_980_G1_Gaming/26.html

Then in the 960 review while acknowledging that R9 290 is good value, he added that it runs hot and loud when in his own testing a Sapphire Tri-X 290X measured 37dBA at load and ran a 73C load, 77C when max overclocked!
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Sapphire/R9_290X_Tri-X_OC/28.html

In other words he is hiding accurate information from the reader or is purposely skewing reality to fit some agenda. Alternatively he gives a 980 a pass for higher noise levels for some reasons not known to us as readers. If he thought the Sapphire Tri-X 290 was too loud at 37dBA, how is he awarding 9.7 to even louder cards? Talk about inconsistency!

Basically sites like TR and TPU are good for data but the conclusions made by their authors as of late do not show objectivity and consistency in GPU reviews.

@ Keysplayer,

960 isn't faster than a 770. Every after-market 960 Computerbase tested lost to a stock 280X/770:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-01/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-im-test/7/

And after you stop looking at Frame Rates and compare Frame Times of a 960 vs. A 280X, the dramaticly inferior frame times of a 960 are impossible to not notice in the charts:
http://www.techspot.com/review/948-geforce-gtx-960-sli-performance/page3.html

After 2-3 years of this forum going haywire over the importance of frame times, NOT 1 NV owner is discussing how horrible the 960 is in this metric against the competition.

Even if we completely ignore a 290 for a second, the FPS the 960 delivers are not comparable to the 280X's. Considering how you yourself talked about poor frame times of HD7000 in CF, why aren't you slamming the 960 for the same problem?