I suggest you guys update your cherry picked charts and and resolution.
Why are those charts cherry-picked -- they portray average performance:
66% / 45% =
47% faster. R9 290X has lifetime warranty, is that worth $0 to you?
Also, TPU uses a reference 290X, not an after-market one so it makes the 290X look worse than it is because normal operating frequency for a reference 290X is not 1Ghz because of throttling.
Computerbase has simulated an after-market 290X and a 960:
1080P HQ
290X OC is
50% faster than 960 OC
290X (Uber = 1Ghz fixed clocks) shows excellent performance against cards like GTX980 and 390X in AT's
most recent GPU review.
290X also comes with Dirt Rally but 960 4GB has no games bundled with it as far as I can see. I cannot find a new GTX970 for $253, can you?
It's funny how you accuse me of cherry-picking when I am actually low-balling 290X's performance advantage over the 960.
"NVIDIA simply cannot get the pricing of its sub-$300 lineup right and continues to offer nothing compelling until the $310 GeForce GTX 970. The company may yet make a ton of money with their mid-range line-up, but that's only because of its better sales-force. The Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo from PowerColor is a gem.
At just $249, the Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo offers current-gen tech. Our tests show that the R9 290 is a whopping 52 percent faster than the $50 cheaper GeForce GTX 960 at 1920 x 1080 pixels, our target resolution. " ~
TechPowerup
Looks to me like the after-market R9 290X is at least 47-52% faster than the GTX960 based on 3 different reviews at 1080P, but at $253 it costs just 26.5% more than the $200 960 4GB. That makes it a far better deal and a much cheaper long-term upgrade path over the GTX960.
Any questions?