All other games and reviews the stock 960 simply is slower then a 770 in all resolutions lol.
So just as most of us said for weeks -
complete disappointment at current prices.
EVGA 960 SSC - $210 = 100%
After-market R9 290 = reference 290X = $250-275 =
147% at 1080P.
Who is going to buy this product for 1080P, HALF the VRAM and 50% less performance to save $40-65.
Come on people,
$260 for a Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 without any special sale.
Asus R9 290 for
$240 on Newegg!!
NV is
really dropping the ball on drivers lately. 780 is just 8% faster than a 7970Ghz at 1440P,
970 and 780Ti < 290X, 980 is ONLY 10% faster than a 290X reference.
Holly ****, a $550 980 card is just 10% faster than a $300-325 R9 290X card at 1440P, and just 8% faster at 4K. You can almost buy dual
MSI Lighting 290Xs now almost the same price of
some after-market 980s. And people say AMD's drivers are bad?! Mind-blown.
Things get even worse for 970/980 at 4K against ancient 290/290X cards.
Not even cherry picked marketing reviews can make this card look good.
Wow that deception is bad, indication of a card with little going for it.
I can't see how anyone brand agnostic can possibly defend or recommend this card. The amount of value an after-market R9 290 offers in comparison is out of this world. I mean I've never seen such a major gap in value between AMD and NV. We are literally talking
DOUBLE the VRAM and 37-47% more performance for $40-50 more. I can't believe it. I am absolutely shocked the market has come down to this that AMD is practically giving away their cards and NV gamers still keep buying NV. This is a sad sad time period for PC gaming. It'll be 100% proof that if this card sells well and NV users looking for a $200-250 gaming card don't jump to an after-market R9 290 that they are 100% brand brainwashed and absolutely don't care about price/performance of AMD cards. Might as well sell R9 390X for $299 against a $699 GM200.
----
I can't believe TPU gave 960 a 9/10. What are they smoking?! He goes on to say:
"The current price/performance king is R9 290, which at $270 isn't completely out of reach either. However, what makes the difference for me, and certainly a huge amount of users, is that NVIDIA's new GTX 960 is so power efficient, which means it runs
much cooler and quieter unlike AMD's cards."
What a bunch of made up baloney. I expected better from an informed hardware reviewer.
1. What does a card running cooler have to do with anything? If an R9 290 is rated to run at 90C, and 960 runs at 70C, who cares?
2. We know that after-market cards like R9 290 Sapphire Tri-X run both cool and quiet even if he is paranoid to run a cad at 85-90C. I guess he can't think outside the box as if AIBs do not sell 290s?
Are we supposed to believe these "professional" reviews when videos show a max loaded Tri-X 290 is
cool and quiet?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-and-290x,3728-8.html
W1zzard lost some credibility in my eyes with trying to pass on what's aren't facts as facts with insinuations that after-market 290s run hot and loud. I guess I should have known better which way marketing $ flows these days, but deep down I still though reviewers would call it how it is instead of straight up making up facts.
I am sorry but TPU is becoming a hypocritical site, heavily slanted towards NV in some ways.
W1zzard goes on to criticize R9 290's noise levels but gives a Gigabyte 980 G1 a 9.7 out of 10 in his review. If he cares about noise levels so much, he is 100% inconsistent.
vs.