GTX 960 is expected to launch next month.

[WittyRemark]

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 you paid and bought you performance between 650Ti Boost and GTX660 and 7850/7870 2 or even three years ago,
gets you GTX770/280X performance at 1080p today. I don't know why some folks don't have wider trains 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 Who cares what you could get used or outdated for the same price today, that holds little logic to me for an enthusiast.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.

I'm actually more worried about that 128 bit bandwith and how it'll effect the performance on upcoming 2015 AAA games ,performance is exactly where it should be.
But it takes overclocking to match the R9 280 ,and it overclocks too you know,but as you mentioned ,it's an old card .
But for someone looking for performance, R9 290 is the best deal atm and,
Both 960 & the 290 target different audiences.
Imo I don't think 960 is going to outlast R9 290.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I'm actually more worried about that 128 bit bandwith and how it'll effect the performance on upcoming 2015 AAA games ,performance is exactly where it should be.

Unless you are using Maxwell optimized AA, 960 takes quite a performance hit (in pr slides nvidia conveniently compared 960 to 660 with maxwell aa). Also, I suspect it performs worse in older games, compared to 760. I need to verify the latter, though. Compare Far Cry 4 versus Crysis 3 TPU benches.

FC4 v1.7 is using close to 1.8gb of Vram (max, smaa, simulated fur, enhanced god rays, hbao+, soft shadows) even at 1280x1024 res (played last night). Some food for thought, what it's going to be like in 2016?

This card wasn't meant to last long. And failure to mention this, is a sin.

If you must buy Maxwell, get 970/980 instead. At least you won't have to replace those cards in a year (unless you play wow/LoL or other undemanding games). With nVidia you have to pay more to get good products, I am afraid.

 

[WittyRemark]

Unless you are using Maxwell optimized AA, 960 takes quite a performance hit. Also, I suspect it performs worse in older games, compared to 760. I need to verify the latter, though. Compare Far Cry 4 versus Crysis 3 TPU benches.

FC4 is using close to 1.8gb of Vram (max, smaa, simulated fur, enhanced god rays, hbao+, soft shadows) even at 1280x1024 res. Some food for thought, what it's going to be like in 2016?

This card wasn't meant to last long. And failure to mention this, is a sin.

Exactly!
and That's precisely why I'm worried about it.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm actually more worried about that 128 bit bandwith and how it'll effect the performance on upcoming 2015 AAA games ,performance is exactly where it should be.

That's the thing, when the data is right in front of us, we already see that 2GB cards with low memory bandwidth cannot play today's games well. I think most people glanced 1-2 reviews and were done, but if you look around, the bottlenecks are already here, now. What are the chances that 2015-2016 PC console ports for the next wave of PS4 ports will use 2GB of VRAM or less? Who wants to play the VRAM/memory bandwidth Russian roulette after spending $200 on a card to save a $50 over 2 years and end up with this:

Look at this -- After-market 960 can't even beat a reference 680/770. Clearly already running into a memory bandwidth bottleneck.

960 = 46.6 fps
R9 280X = 72.9 fps
R9 290 = 98.5 fps = for $50-60 more!

And then people state that 960 doesn't deserve the bashing that it gets? It does, all of it. Needs to be $149 since the 2GB/128-bit bus bottleneck is already hurting this card in 2014 games.

Interesting how 3 years ago many of us called Tahiti's 7970 the better overall GPU than the 680 but most here never wanted to admit that Tahiti XT was more forward looking than a GM204. Look at those 680/770 chips getting beaten by a 7970Ghz/280X. Even the 925mhz 7970 is faster than a 770!

Look at Evolve's 1080P VRAM usage and beta performance of all 2GB cards - bottlenecking incoming!
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2417529

This card wasn't meant to last long. And failure to mention this, is a sin.
If you must buy Maxwell, get 970/980 instead.

:thumbsup: or wait for a 3GB/192-bit GTX960Ti at $249.

Hopefully AMD's next gen mid-range cards come packing at least 3GB of VRAM.

 

[Qwertilot]

To be honest the 290 and 960 are so different that comparing them is very subjective. Of course reviewers should be making the sorts of trade offs involved very clear!

Yes, they're charging a premium for lower power/very quiet operation. So? There's a non trivial market for that. I haven't noticed Noctua etc giving their fans/coolers away

Those charts actually show it. Yes other cards faster than the 960 for those settings/game. Still the 960 clearly can run the game quite happily (at 1080 anyway) on those settings, so it would be entirely rational to decide to prioritise its noise/power draw.

Its very nice to have this choice, because this sort of card (also 750ti) didn't really exist before.

 

[el etro]

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.

Is faster simply because Kepler got a bit outdated. In older games GTX 960 will be as fast as GTX 760.

^ 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.

I'm done with TPU here too, RS.

And TR was always a bad intentioned site on my point of view.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yes, they're charging a premium for lower power/very quiet operation. So? There's a non trivial market for that. I haven't noticed Noctua etc giving their fans/coolers away

Yes, but what a premium!

1080P
GTX960 = 66% = $200
GTX960 SLI = 100% = $400
R9 290X after-market = 103% = $270 (56% faster at 1080P than a 960 for only 35% more money)
GTX980 = 120% = $550 (17% faster for at 1080P than a 290X for 2.04X more money)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_960_SLI/23.html

You can now buy up to 60% more performance with dual 290Xs for the same price as a 980. GO PREMIUMS!

If power consumption of 2-3 light bulbs is so critical, why game on the PC and buy expensive videocards?

Wii U uses 35-37W of power total vs. 230-240W of power of a 960 PC and it's quieter than any 960. Clearly the Wii U is way better than a PC with a 960 as it uses 6.5X less power, runs quieter but no way does a PC with a 960 produces 6.5X better graphics.

We could then conclude erroneously that Wii U >>> Gaming PC with a GTX960. See how talking about perf/watt, power usage becomes a subjective discussion and leads to some crazy conclusions?

BTW, the 960 is just 9% faster than a 760 and the overall system power usage is just 30-40W less. You made it sound like a 960 level of performance/watt is some revolution or something. If you took 2 gaming systems and put them side-by-side and one used 230W of power with 9% more performance and the other used 270W of power, you would never be able to tell while gaming in the room without a Kill-a-Watt and benchmarking.

Right now you can buy a cool and quiet R9 290 (You still can't accept that such cards actually exist), and drop the clocks to 50%, set an FPS cap to limit your power usage. When you want ultra textures and higher performance, you can have that too. Can you do that on a 960? Nope, you have no such flexibility as you are stuck with lower quality textures and slower performance.

When next gen games come out, I guess you'll be fine to spend another $200 for a 120W x60 Pascal that might match a 3 year old $250 R9 290?

It's not just about saving electricity today, but about paying a little extra so that you don't have to drop yet another $200-250 so soon as your videocard becomes way too slow, way too soon. By 2016, a $200 x60 Pascal might beat an R9 290 but it'll cost you another $200 but the R9 290 owner just spent $50 for similar performance and enjoyed all of that for almost 2 years!

Is faster simply because Kepler got a bit outdated. In older games GTX 960 will be as fast as GTX 760.

I think it's still valid to use the data from TR and TPU but their GPU review conclusions have to be taken with a huge grain of salt imo. Essentially the authors prioritize perf/watt above all other metrics, but TR is even worse since they ignore frame times, the very topic they bashed AMD on for 3 years after NV provided them with the FCAT tools. Also, the editor of TR loves Borderlands games, which have PhysX. He's stated many times that it's among his favourite franchises to play. I don't see him as being an impartial gamer since he obviously cannot play without PhysX in his favourite game series. It doesn't take too long to connect the dots that your favourite game series runs better on NV so what cards is he more likely to recommend in his reviews?

 

[shady28]

Just to point out -

AMD only has 2 "new" cards in its lineup - the 290 / 290X.

R9 280 / 280X are 7850/7970 cards. Those 79xx cards were introduced 2 1/2 years ago (mid 2012).

R9 280 vs 7950 :
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1032?vs=1332

R9 280X vs 7970 Ghz :
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1031?vs=1041

All AMD has done is rebadged, tweaked, and pushed their cards down market.

7950 launched January 30, 2012 for 449.00.
7950B launched August 14, 2012 for 329.00
7970 launched January 09, 2012 for 549.00

If Nvidia were doing the same thing as AMD, the GTX 960 would be a rebadged GTX 670 and the Ti would be a rebadged 680. Instead they have a new chip which allows you to put that kind of power into a card that's smaller, runs cooler, and takes less power.

If AMD had been upgrading their chips like Nvidia, this would be a discussion on the R7 260 and 260X vs the GTX 960, two cards that have about the same power draw and both of which can be small. Instead you're comparing it to an R9 280, or "used" R9 290s. That alone speaks loads to the tech difference you're talking about. You might as well rec people buy used GTX 680s or some other pointless drivel.

And it's worth noting that the 960 is hard to find in a non OC state, that seems to be reserved to the 7" cards targeting HTPCs. That's something an R9 280/280X will never be able to do - be small and quiet and unobtrusive.

Pretty much all of them are OC, and the Strixx is not the fastest one.

Since some certain poster likes to cherry pick benchmarks, here are my cherry picked benchmarks of the 960.

 

[Udgnim]

what's up with the Metro: Last Light benchmarks?

edit: read HardwareCanucks review and says "* Please note that AMD's driver has issues in the level we are using as a benchmark. However, this problem does not seem to affect other areas of the game. As such, their results have been included for reference purposes only and ARE NOT factored into this review's conclusion."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8586/benchmarked-metro-last-light-redux

 

[Qwertilot]

The noise levels really are quite an advance over the 760, and there's about a third lopped off the power draw which will be much more obvious in the context of an overall low power system.

You have to be building your system round either aspect for them to be massive things of course.

As for me, I've got a 360w psu, very slow/quiet case fans and a fair bit of acoustic padding, so yes actually I do rather fancy the pascal equivalent of the 960. Should do me for 4k gaming

I definitely hope they keep making the 'best 60w' and 'best 120w' cards that they can going forwards, whatever they call/price them etc.

 

[shady28]

what's up with the Metro: Last Light benchmarks?

edit: read HardwareCanucks review and says "* Please note that AMD's driver has issues in the level we are using as a benchmark. However, this problem does not seem to affect other areas of the game. As such, their results have been included for reference purposes only and ARE NOT factored into this review's conclusion."
<snip>

The 960 beats the 760 by a wide margin as well. It's a real improvement, not just some rebadged chip from 2012 as AMD is doing to the midrange and low end.

That strategy from AMD is going to end in tragedy for them. I see it as a one trick pony whose time is over. What's next, push the 250W 290 to midrange? Oh but wait, that's already happening.

There's a reason AMD's cards are so cheap and so plentiful, and it isn't a good reason.

 

[Leyawiin]

What's new at AT are people now disregarding performance, price/preformance and VRAM, all objective measurements that directly impact IQ and FPS.

I'm curious. Did you take the R9 285 to task five months ago for the same issues?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36676253&postcount=347

Guess not. The GTX 960 is matching its performance at 1080p (which is what 75% of people play with) and only slightly slower @1440p with much more modest specs and greater efficiency (and launched for $50 less).

 

[It's Not Lupus]

If my budget is ~$200, what should I buy?

 

[USER8000]

Is faster simply because Kepler got a bit outdated. In older games GTX 960 will be as fast as GTX 760.




I'm done with TPU here too, RS.

And TR was always a bad intentioned site on my point of view.

TR started going downhill once the site owner started accepting direct donations from his own forums,via the new tier system.

Having said that,looking at least in the UK not many people are finding the GTX960 that well priced. GTX970 cards went as low as £240 here and many of the GTX960 cards are between £160 to £200. The GTX780 could be had as low as £190 at one point.

Even some of the diehard Nvidia fans I know are like WTF??

 

[cmdrdredd]

If my budget is ~$200, what should I buy?

I'd stretch the budget a bit closer to $300 by saving a little more and get a 290 unless you can wait longer and save more and get close to $350 but I imagine you want something quickly? In that case you can get a 280x for about $250. the 960 and 280 are both around $200. What resolution are you looking at 1080p?

 

[Magic Carpet]

The 960 beats the 760 by a wide margin as well. It's a real improvement, not just some rebadged chip from 2012 as AMD is doing to the midrange and low end.

If you compare it with its logical predecessor, GTX 760:

9% over reference 760. When OC'ed only 14% improvement against again, a reference 760. Overclock that 760 and the difference will be even less evident. What is this? Some AMD PR tactics? Very bad, if it's that good why not bump the clocks from the beginning and have the ref. card design perform better. I don't understand this dodgy tactics. Almost as good as AMD selling its CPUs... but you can overclock it, lmao. And then, claiming how power efficient it is playing LoL or whatever with the fans turned off. Are you buying this card to play Tetris? Absolutely disgusting.

But yeah, software tweaks for Kepler are over, so I expect Maxwell to do much better in newer games (e.g. Far Cry 4 clearly shows that). Still, a lousy card with the wrong name and the price tag.

20 watts less consumed on average. Oh my god! I've just become greener. Wrong focus!

The worst nVIDIA "mid-range" launch in years :thumbsdown:

 

[Paul98]

I'd stretch the budget a bit closer to $300 by saving a little more and get a 290 unless you can wait longer and save more and get close to $350 but I imagine you want something quickly? In that case you can get a 280x for about $250. the 960 and 280 are both around $200. What resolution are you looking at 1080p?

You can get a 280 for around 150, 280x around 200, and 290 around 250.

 

[tential]

The 960 beats the 760 by a wide margin as well. It's a real improvement, not just some rebadged chip from 2012 as AMD is doing to the midrange and low end.

That strategy from AMD is going to end in tragedy for them. I see it as a one trick pony whose time is over. What's next, push the 250W 290 to midrange? Oh but wait, that's already happening.

There's a reason AMD's cards are so cheap and so plentiful, and it isn't a good reason.

So you'd rather have a new card over an old card.
No matter how much slower that new card is.

Why not just say you like new technology and don't really care as much about performance...

Newness of tech and Power Draw are your most important factors clearly why not just state that then?

Some of us though need this thing called performance. I'm guessing given you're a GTX 750 Ti user, who finds this cards level of performance attractive, you probably aren't in the same position the majority of enthusiasts are who care about performance first and not how new a technology is but rather how it performs in the real world.

 

[Leyawiin]

If you compare it with its logical predecessor, GTX 760:

But its not (GTX X60 nomenclature not withstanding). The Ti will be @ $249. The GTX 660 is still on the market. That's what its replacing.

 

[Blue_Max]

You can get 280 for $145 after rebates. Details. Although, I'd add some more and get 290 for $225.

You guys get such ridiculously good deals... so jealous.


That aside, the new 960 sure looks nice! Good power efficiency too!

 

[ocre]

I'm curious. Did you take the R9 285 to task five months ago for the same issues?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36676253&postcount=347

Guess not. The GTX 960 is matching its performance at 1080p (which is what 75% of people play with) and only slightly slower @1440p with much more modest specs and greater efficiency (and launched for $50 less).

wow.

lol

good post :thumbsup:

 

[shady28]

You can get 280 for $145 after rebates. Details. Although, I'd add some more and get 290 for $225.

You can use visa check out and get -$25 on any of those cards, including the 960. That's a promo for visa checkout, not the card.

 

[Enigmoid]

In canada using pcpartpicker

Cheapest 960 $219
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-oc-2c-105118-1481.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 270X $209 - 15 MIR = $195
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-radeon-hd-r9-270x-b1-90924-1356.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 280 $215 - 20 MIR = $195
http://www.ncix.com/detail/gigabyte-radeon-r9-280-oc-0b-98788-1356.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 280X $239
http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-280x-royalqueen-15-94043-1356.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 285 $219 - 20 MIR = $199
http://www.ncix.com/detail/powercolor-radeon-r9-285-turbo-11-101468-1356.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 290 $339 - 30 MIR = $309
http://www.ncix.com/detail/asus-radeon-r9-290-directcu-71-93995-1356.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 290X $339 - 30 MIR = $309
http://www.ncix.com/detail/powercolor-radeon-r9-290x-975mhz-d3-103515-1356.htm?affiliateid=7474144

Cheapest 970 $369
http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=43_1200_557_559&item_id=076658

960 is nothing special. However, the 290/290X is $90 more and reagrdless of perf/$ is much more expensive. The 270X is useless with the 280 or 280X giving the best perf/$.

 

[shady28]

So you'd rather have a new card over an old card.
No matter how much slower that new card is.

Why not just say you like new technology and don't really care as much about performance...

Newness of tech and Power Draw are your most important factors clearly why not just state that then?

Some of us though need this thing called performance. I'm guessing given you're a GTX 750 Ti user, who finds this cards level of performance attractive, you probably aren't in the same position the majority of enthusiasts are who care about performance first and not how new a technology is but rather how it performs in the real world.

That's not what I said, and thanks for trying to stick words in my mouth.

I was pointing out :

1 - People stating why buy a card that's only 9% faster than an 18 month of 760 and then say the R9 280 is a better 'deal' either ignore or count on others ignorance that in fact the R9 280 / X are rebadged 2 1/2 year old cards.

2 - The 960 is new, and does in fact perform better than the R9 280 in many cases. A corollary to this is that it has better future DX support than the R9 280 / 280X.



If all we care about is apples to bannana comparisons, why not rack this up as one of the best deals going, and why would anyone buy a 960 or a 280 while these are still around?


GTX 760 for $139 :

http://slickdeals.net/f/7456008-msi-n760-2gd5-oc-gtx-760-2gb-139-99-ac-fs?v=1


GTX 660 for $95 :

http://slickdeals.net/f/7514064-zot...75-newegg-masterpass-checkout-mobile-only?v=1


I mean seriously? You're gonna spend an extra $50-$80 (80%) on an R9 280 when you can get 80% of the bang for half the buck, while saving power and making less heat?

If you haven't noticed, this is tongue in cheek. I'm using the same tactics that have been being used to try to shoot down the 960 and pump up the R9 series.

Recent posts we're even talking about used R9s 290s on ebay vs the 960? Right, ok, and this matters why? Maybe we should be wondering why there are brand new 290s all over the place - people want to get rid of them why?

Being a bit more forward-looking, what do you suppose this market is going to look like for AMD in 3 - 6 months, when there's a 960Ti out probably selling for $200-$250, and the 960s are selling for $160-$200?

And what's going to happen to all those R9 280/280X and lower cards when games start to actually use DX 11.3 and 12?

 

[Ranulf]

That's not what I said, and thanks for trying to stick words in my mouth.

I was pointing out :


2 - The 960 is new, and does in fact perform better than the R9 280 in many cases. A corollary to this is that it has better future DX support than the R9 280 / 280X.

...


And what's going to happen to all those R9 280/280X and lower cards when games start to actually use DX 11.3 and 12?

Oh come on, not the "It has future/new DX x.x support!" argument. My 5850 came out in late 2009 with DX11 support listed on the box. I bought mine in mid 2010 IIRC and I wasn't playing any games solely in DX11 for two years. By the time games preferred or required DX11, the 5850 was capable but at its replacement time. I got three years out of it because I was gaming sub 1080p for most of it and was happy with performance/noise. Diablo3 had that card crying in 1080p. Historically, betting that the 960 will hold up for DX12 is a bad bet.

Also, as others mentioned WoW (graphics matter more now in new expansion than before) and LoL, Nvidia has been marketing the 960 as for MOBA gamers. They'll probably be happy with it for 2-3 years at 1080p.